E/V  I  D  E  N  C  E 

and 

Cross  Examinat^n 

of 


William  D.  Hakwood 

In  the  Case  .of /tHe 
U. 

aywood,  et  al. 


uiuwiiig  tilt;  uciit/wD. 


1 


WILLIAM  D.  HAYWOOD, 

one  of  the  defendants,  being  called  as  a  witness  in  his  own 
behalf,  and  being  first  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows : 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY 
MR.  VANDERVEER: 

Q. — Your  name  is  William  D.  Haywood? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — How  old  are  you? 

A. — Forty-nine. 

Q. — Where  were  you  born,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Q. — You  are  now  General  Secretary  of  the  Indus- 
trial Workers  of  the  World? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — How  long  have  you  occupied  that  position? 
,^        A. — Three  years,  the  first  of  January. 
7\i        Q- — How  were  you  chosen  to  that  position? 

A. — Nominated  in  convention  and  elected  by  ref- 
erendum. 

Q. — Of  the  members  of  the  organization? 

A. — Of  the  membership. 

Q.— Whom  did  you  succeed  in  that  position? 

A.— Vincent  St.  John. 

Q. — What  line  of  work  have  you  followed,  Mr. 
Haywood? 

A. — Mining,  principally. 

Q. — At  what  age  did  you  start  out  in  the  world 
to  make  your  own  living? 

A. — You  mean  when  I  first  began  working? 

Q._Yes. 

A. — Well,  I  was  still  living  at  home  then.   I  was 
a  little  less  than  nine  years  old. 

Q.^What  kind  of  work  did  you  do  then? 

A. — I  was  helping  my  step-father  in  a  mine. 

Q. — Helping  him  in  a  mine?     In  what  way? 

A. — Twisting   drill,   carrying  steel   and   water; 
blowing  the  bellows. 


4  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Working  underground? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — How  long  did  you  continue  to  work  in  the 
mine  and  live  at  home  ? 

A. — That  was  a  very  short  time.  We  were  doing 
some  assessment  work  in  Ofer  Canyon,  Utah,  at  that 
time. 

Q. — When  did  you  leave  home,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — When  I  was  fifteen. 

Q. — What  line  of  work  did  you  take  up  then? 

A. — Mining. 

Q. — Underground? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — What  work  were  you  employed  at  at  that  age 
underground? 

A. — Well,  I  first  ran  car  and  twisted  the  windlass. 

Q. — Whereabouts  was  this? 

A. — At  the  Ohio  mine  in  Willow  Creek,  Nevada. 

Q. — How  long  did  you  follow  mining  continuous- 
ly from  that  time? 

A. — Oh,  almost  continuously  until  1901. 

Q. — That  would  be  how  many  years? 

A. — That  would  be  from  1885  until — about  16 
years. 

Q. — In  what  part  of  the  country  did  you  work  as 
a  miner? 

A. — Nevada,  Utah,  Idaho — do  you  mean  the  dif- 
ferent towns? 

Q. — Pardon  me — Colorado? 

A. — No;  I  have  never  worked  in  the  mines  of 
Colorado. 

Q. — Did  you  work  at  Silverton? 

A.— No. 

Q. — You  were  a  member,  or  became  a  member  of 
the   Western   Federation   of   Miners? 

A. — I  became  a  member  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners  at  Silver  City. 

Q. — Had  you  previously  been  a  member  of  any 
other  labor  organization? 

A.— No. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  5 

Q. — When  was  it  you  joined  the  Western  Federa- 
tion? 

A. — August  10,  1896. 

Q. — When  did  you  first  become  an  official  of  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners? 

A. — I  was  elected  on  the  Executive  Board  in 
1900. 

Q. — How  long  did  you  serve  as  a  member  of  the 
Executive  Board? 

A. — One  year. 

Q. — Did  you  then — were  you  elected  then  to  some 
other  oflftce  ? 

A. — Secretary-treasurer. 

Q. — How  long  did  you  serve  as  secretary-treas- 
urer? 

A. — Until  1907,  that  is  the  latter  part  of  1907. 

Q. — Where  were  your  ofl^ces — where  was  your 
office  maintained  during  the  time  when  you  were 
on  the  executive  board  and  were  secretary-treas- 
urer? 

A. — When  on  the  executive  board  the  head- 
quarters was  in  Butte  and  when  elected  secretary 
the  office  was  moved  to  Denver,  Colorado. 

Q. — While  you  were  a  member  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners,  did, — did  you,  as  a  member  of 
the  organization  go  through  any  strikes  in  the  min- 
ing industry? 

A. — Well,  there  was  a  number  of  strikes  while  I 
was  on  the  executive  board  and  secretary-treasurer. 

Q. — Which  was  the  first  strike  with  which  you 
had  any  experience? 

A. — The  strike  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes,  Idaho. 

Q.— That  was  in  1899? 

A.— 1899. 

Q. — That  is  what  is  known  as  the  Second  Coeur 
d*Alene  strike? 

A. — Yes.  The  first  Coeur  d'Alene  strike  took 
place  in  1892. 

Q. — Had  you  been  working  in  the  Coeur 
d'Alenes? 


6  TESTIMONY  OF 

A.— No. 

Q. — You  went  in  there  during  the  strike? 

A. — I  went  in  there  by  instructions  from  the  Ex- 
ecutive Board  of  the  W.  F.  of  M. 

Q. — To  v/ork  for  the  Western  Federation  of  Min- 
ers? 

A. — Yes.  See  what  could  be  done  to  reorganize 
it. 

Q. — I  wish  you  would  describe  briefly  the  1899 
strike  in  the  Couer  d'Alenes,  just  the  manner  it  was 
conducted  on  the  part  of  the  mine  owners  and  men 
and  what  happened? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  is  objected  to,  if  the  Court 
please.  It  seems  to  be  exactly  the  same  as  the  rul- 
ing of  your  Honor  in  the  case  of  Chaplin.  I  cannot 
see  here  what  materiality  this  would  have  other  than 
it  had  in  that  case. 

THE  COURT:  Overruled.    Answer  the  question. 

A. — The  Coeur  d'Alene  strike  of  1899  began  over 
a  demand  of  the  mining  companies  to  reduce  the 
wages.  The  wages  of  that  district  at  that  time  was 
$3.50  a  day,  with  the  exception  of  a  mine  called  'The 
Last  Chance."  The  Mine  Operators  Association  noti- 
fied the  men  that  the  wages  were  going  to  be  re- 
duced to  the  same  level  as  *'The  Last  Chance,"  or 
"The  Last  Chance"  must  come  up  to  their  terms. 
There  was  a  general  strike  declared  on  April  29, 
1899,  a  demand  on  the  part  of  the  men  that  the 
wages  should  remain  where  they  were.  The  strike 
had  been  on  but  a  day  or  two  when  the  Bunker  Hill 
and  Sullivan  mill  was  blown  up — entirely  destroyed. 
The  mining  companies  brought  in  gunmen  and  thugs 
and  later  the  regular  soldiers. 

Q. — The  militia  or  soldiers? 
A.— These  were  the  regular  soldiers,  a  colored 
regiment.  Somewhere  between  900  and  1000  min- 
ers were  rounded  up  and  placed  under  military  au- 
thority in  what  was  called  a  bullpen.  This  bullpen 
was  a  low  rambling  one-story  structure  without  a 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  7 

floor,  the  bunks  built  up  two  high,  where  the  miners 
were  held  for  a  period  of  nearly  seven  months. 

Q. — How  many  miners,  by  the  way,  were  em- 
ployed in  the  Coeur  d'Alene  mines? 

A. — I  should  judge  that  the  total  number  was 
close  to  3,000. 

Q. — So  that  approximately  one-third  of  them 
v/ere  arrested? 

A.— At  least  that  many. 

Q. — At  least  that  many?     Go  ahead. 

A. — During  the  incarceration  of  these  men  under 
the  crowded  conditions  their  health  was  very  much 
impaired  and  the  condition  of  their  women  and  chil- 
dren was  almost  beyond  belief. 

The  white  officers  of  these  negro  soldiers  sent  a 
notice  to  the  white  women,  asking  them  to  receive 
the  company  of  the  negro  soldiers,  and  there  were 
some  instances  recorded  of  where  white  women  who 
went  to  the  bullpen  with  food  and  clothes  for  their 
husbands  were  violated  in  the  presence  of  their  hus- 
bands. A  crowd  of  soldiers  held  them  while  others 
were  abusing  their  wives.  The  newspapers — one  of 
them  owned  by  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  at 
that  time — were  supressed,  and  the  editors  thrown 
in  prison,  which  was  pretty  generally  the  treatment 
accorded  all  of  those  who  were  supposed  to  be  friend- 
ly to  the  organization.  Hundreds  of  miners  were 
driven  from  the  district. 

Q. — Driven  from  the  district?  Deported,  you 
mean? 

A. — Well,  not  as  they  later  did  in  Colorado,  but 
they  were  just  frightened  away.  The  entire  district 
was  under  martial  law. 

Q. — Any  men  killed  in  that  strike? 

A. — There  was  one  man  killed  at  the  time  the 
mill  exploded,  or  was  blown  up,  but  later,  I  think 
only  one  by  the  soldiers. 

Q. — What  was  the  outcome  of  the  strike? 

A. — Well,  it  just  seemed  to  wear  itself  out.  The 
result  was  that  the  wages  were  not  reduced,  however, 


8  TESTIMONY  OF 

but  that  was  the  first  place  where  the  employment 
office,  or  rustling  card  system  was  established. 

Q. — Were  they  established  there  before  the  strike 
or  afterwards? 

A. — After  the  strike. 

Q. — After  the  strike?  And  employed  for  what 
purpose?  The  usual  one,  to  keep  out  agitators? 

A.- — Well,  that  was  the  purpose,  of  course,  to 
keep  out  members  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Min- 
ers. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  what  percentage  of  the 
miners  of  that  camp  were  at  that  time  members  of 
the  Western  Federation? 

A. — Well,  it  was  nearly  a  union  camp.  That  is, 
all  of  the  camps  were  pretty  well  unionized. 

Q. — What  was  the  attitude  of  the  men  there 
towards  the  soldiers  employed  there? 

A. — Why,  naturally  the  attitude  was  that  they 
were  very  bitter  towards  these  soldiers. 

Q. — Very  bitter  towards  the  soldiers  ?  Now,  what 
was  the  next  important  strike  with  which  you  had 
anything  to  do,  or  which  came  under  your  observa- 
tion? 

A.— I  think  the  next  important  strike  was  in  Tel- 
luride  in  1901. 

Q. — What  was  the  strike  about? 

A. — Wages  and  hours. 

Q. — Demands  for  increased  wages  or  an  attempt 
to  lower  the  wages? 

A. — The  demand  was  for  an  increased  wage. 

Q. — What  was  the  wage  previous? 

A. — Three  and  a  half.  Three  and  three  and  a 
half. 

Q. — Tell  us  briefly  about  as  you  did  in  the  Coeur 
d'Alene  matter,  about  the  history  of  that  strike  and 
how  it  progressed. 

A.- — Well,  that  was  a  strike  of  short  duration  and 
the  demands  were  soon  gained. 

Q. — Was  there  any  violence  on  the  part  of  the 
strikers? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  9 

A. — The  non-union  men  were  told  to  either  join 
the  union  or  leave  the  camp,  as  they  were  a  bone  of 
contention.  Aside  from  that  there  was  no  violence 
on  the  part  of  the  miners. 

Q. — Were  there  troops  brought  in  at  that  strike? 

A. — Not  at  that  time. 

Q. — The  miners  won  that  strike,  did  they? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Any  other  instance  of  unusual  significance  in 
connection  with  it? 

A. — Well,  there  were.  The  Governor  appointed 
a  committee  composed  of — I  remember  two  of  the 
men — Senator  Buckley  and  Lieutenant-Governor  Da- 
vid Coates  who  went  to  Telluride  and  upon  their  ar- 
rival there  they  notified  the  Governor  that  the  mines 
were  in  peaceable  possession  of  the  miners;  that 
there  w^as  no  occasion  for  the  soldiers  or  the  malitia. 

Q. — What  was  the  next  strike,  Mr.  Haywood, 
with  which  you  had  any  connection?  Important 
strike  ? 

A. — The  next  strike  was — beginning,  I  think  in 
Colorado  City^a  strike  of  a  number  of  the  mill  men 
of  that  mill  town. 

Q. — A  strike  in  the  smelter  there? 

A. — Not  the  smelter. 

Q. — That  became  later  merged  in  and  part  of 
the  general  Colorado  strike? 

A. — A  strike  throughout  the  state. 

Q. — Commonly  known  as  the  Cripple  Creek 
Strike? 

A. — I  might  explain  in  connection  with  the  Colo- 
rado City  strike  that  there  had  been  an  8-hour  law 
passed  in  the  state  in  1899,  a  duplicate  of  the  8-hour 
law  of  Utah,  which  was  carried  to  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  by  attorney  John  H.  Murphy  by  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and  the  organiza- 
tion— 

Q. — The  Utah  law  was  sustained,  was  it  not? 

A. — Yes.  The  Utah  law  was  taken  to  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court. 


10  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — And  sustained? 

A. — And  a  part  of  the  expenses  being  paid  by  the 
W.  F.  of  M.,  the  Utah  State  Federation,  and  the  law 
was  declared  constitutional.  Now,  a  similar  law  was 
passed  in  Colorado  in  1899,  and  declared  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  state.  The  result 
was  a  strike  in  the  Denver  smelters — the  Globe, 
Grant  and  other  smelters — which  lasted  for  some- 
time. Later  on  came  this  strike  in  Colorado  City  for 
the  8  hour  day,  being  one  of  the  issues.  Another  was 
against  the  blanket  insurance,  the  charge  being  made 
by  the  company  for  insurance  when  the  men  were  on 
duty  of  some  3  per  cent  of  their  earnings.  They 
worked  in  the  plants  there,  the  Clorination  plants, 
for  11  hours  and  13  hours  a  night.  They  demanded 
that  these  conditions  must  be  improved. 

Q. — At  this  time  you  were  general  secretary  of 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  were  you  not? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — By  the  way,  I  feel  that  you  ought  to  continue 
with  the  history  of  that  struggle  for  the  8-hour  day, 
perhaps,  inasmuch  as  you  started  it.  After  the  Colo- 
rado law  had  been  declared  unconstitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  that  state,  what  next  was  done? 

A. — It  was  then  taken  up  by  both  of  the  larger 
political  parties,  the  Democratic  and  Republican 
party  in  convention. 

Q. — Wait  a  moment.  Was  there  not  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  first? 

A. — I  was  going  to  say  that  each  one  of  these 
parties  recommended  a  constitutional  amendment 
which  was  submitted  to  the  people  of  Colorado,  it 
seems  to  me  in  1901,  and  was  carried  by  a  majority 
vote  of  46,714.  But  this  constitutional  amendment 
was  not  put  into  force,  although  it  was  the  mandate 
of  the  people ;  the  assembly  which  convenes  after 
election  failed  to  put  this  into  the  constitution  of  the 
state. 

Q. — Was  that  constitutional  amendment  mod- 
elled after  the  constitution  of  any  other  state? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  11 

A. — Well,  it  is  practically  the  same.  Not  the  con- 
stitution of  any  other  state,  but  it  was  practically 
the  same  law  as  had  been  declared  constitutional  in 
Utah. 

Q. — Well,  was  not  an  amendment  made  so  as  to 
conform  with  the  provisions  of  the  Utah  constitution, 
do  you  remember? 

A. — Well,  the  law  in  Utah  was  not  a  part  of  the 
constitution. 

Q. — No.  I  understand  that. 
A. — It  was  simply  a  statute. 
Q._Well,  all  right. 
A. — I  don't  get  you  maybe. 

Q. — But  that  law  had  been  followed  in  the  Utah 
Constitution  ? 

A. — Yes,  indeed. 

Q. — And  the  other  law  had  been  held  invalid  un- 
der the  Colorado  constitution? 
A. — Yes,  that  is  true. 

Q. — Now,  I  asked  you  if  an  amendment  to  the 
Colorado  constitution  was — 

A. — Identical  with  the  Utah  Constitution. 
Q. — And  the  result  of  that  vote  in  favor  of  the 
constitutional   amendment  was,   as  you   have   said, 
that  no  action  was  taken? 

A. — No  action  was  taken  by  the  assembly,  and 
the  result  was  a  strike  in  the  mills  and  smelters. 
There  was  a  strike  in  Denver  at  the  same  time  in- 
volving all  of  the  smelters  of  that  town. 

Q. — How  general  did  that  strike  ultimately  be- 
come in  the  mining  industry  of  Colorado? 

A. — Well,  it  entered  the  larger  mines  of  at  least 
three  of  the  big  mining  counties. 

Q. — Did  you  receive  reports  from  your  various 
officials  throughout  the  district,  and  keep  in  touch 
with  the  incidents  as  they  developed?  The  incidents 
of  the  strike  ? 

A. — Almost  daily  reports. 

Q. — And  later  on,  after  the  conclusion  of  that 
difficulty,  I  will  ask  you  if  you  were  in  conference 


12  TESTIMONY  OF 

with  a  representative  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment who  investigated  the  strike  and  prepared  a 
fe  report  on  it,  known  as  the  Carroll  D.  Wright  report? 

A. — Walter  B.  Palmer  appointed  by  Carrol  D. 
Wright  came  to  Colorado  for  the  purpose  of  inves- 
tigating the  strike. 

Q. — Were  you  in  conference  with  him? 

A. — Yes;  many  times. 

Q. — Were  the  mine  owners  in  conference  with 
him? 

A. — They  were. 

Q. — You  have  seen  the  report  prepared  by  him 
and  filed, — at  least  prepared  under  his  supervision 
and  filed  by  Carroll  D.  Wright,  Commissioner  of 
Labor? 

A. — Yes,  I  have  read  it. 

Q. — I  will  ask  you  whether  this  report,  in  so  far 
as  it  deals  with  the  incidents  of  the  strike  of  1901  to 
1904,  was  submitted  for  correction  and  approval  to 
both  contesting  parties? 

A. — Mr.  Palmer  brought  the  proof  to  me,  and 
told  me  that  he  had  also  submitted  them  to  the  mine 
operators,  and  I  went  over  it  pretty  carefully. 

Q. — You  went  over  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  O.  K.'d  and  endorsed  it  along  with  the 
other  side? 

A. — Yes;  I  told  him  that  there  were  very  few 
changes  that  I  would  care  to  make  at  all. 

Q. — Is  this  report  a  correct  recital  of  the  inci- 
dents connected  with  that  strike  in  Colorado,  the  is- 
sues involved  in  the  strike  and  the  conduct  of  the 
parties  throughout  the  strike  ? 

A. — I  think  as  far  as  the  report  goes,  it  is  a  very 
careful  report. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  offer  it  in  evidence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Objected  to  as  immaterial  and 
irrelevant. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  have,  or  would  have  if 
Mr.  Cleary  were  here  just  now,  a  copy  of  the  law 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  13 

under  which  such  reports  are  prepared  and  made, 
showing  clearly  that  it  is  within  the  provisions  of  the 
Department  of  Labor  to  make  such  investigations, 
and  to  publish  their  findings  and  conclusions.  So 
that  I  think,  standing  apart  from  any  testimony  of 
the  witness  as  to  the  part  he  had  in  it,  and  to  his 
personal  knowledge  of  the  verity  of  the  findings  here, 
it  would  be  entitled  under  the  general  statute ;  but 
when  corroborated,  your  Honor,  by  testimony  of  the 
witness,  to  whom  it  was  submitted,  together  with  the 
parties  representing  the  other  side  of  the  contro- 
versy, on  the  evidence  that  it  was  verified  and  O.  K/d 
by  them  before  it  was  published,  then  I  think  that  it 
becomes  admissible  precisely  as  the  statements  of 
any  person  on  either  side  of  a  strike  controversy 
made  to  them  regarding  the  incidents  of  the  strike, 
are  admissible.  Those  have  been  uniformly  admitted 
by  your  Honor  in  evidence. 

THE  COURT:  Passing  the  question  of  compe- 
tency that  you  have  referred  to,  what  is  the  purpose 
of  the  offer,  what  does  this  prove? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  proves  for  instance,  the 
experience  of  this  witness,  then  a  member  and  high 
executive  official  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Min- 
ers with  the  8  hour  legislation.  Eight-hour  direct  ac- 
tion methods.  It  proves  his  experience  with  and  con- 
tact with  the  question  of  violence  pro  and  con.  It 
is  a  development  by  testimony  corroborative  of  his 
own,  of  his  industrial  history,  and  in  particular  rela- 
tion to  matters  which  are  directly  at  issue  in  this  case 
the  question  of  violence,  strikes,  and  the  question  of 
military  authorities;  actions  of  military  authorities, 
and  the  way  these  things  were  treated  and  received 
by  the  miners.  One  chapter  here  devoted  to  the  8 
hour — it  is — well,  it  is  pretty  near  a  story,  in  so  far 
as  it  deals  with  that  strike  of  this  man's  life,  your 
Honor. 

THE  COURT :  Well,  the  point  about  it  is  this.  We 
have  had  this  question  presented  in  a  number  of 
ways.   Now,  here  is  a  man  that  is  on  trial.   He  is  in- 


14  '  TESTIMONY  OF 

dieted.  He  has  got  a  right  to  tell  the  jury  what  his 
motive  has  been;  what  his  activity  has  been  either 
on  the  direct  or  on  the  cross-examination  from  the 
beginning.  That  does  not  go  to  the  point,  and  it  is 
not  for  the  purpose  of  opening  up  as  independent 
facts  to  be  established  on  the  trial  of  the  case,  every- 
thing that  he  might  testify  to  in  the  way  of  experi- 
ence during  his  activity.  But  it  is  to  enable  the  jury 
to  form  a  judgment  of  the  character  of  the  person  on 
trial,  character  being  inherently — the  character  of 
an  accused  person  being  inherent  in  this  class  of  a 
case.  Now,  we  have  had  from — I  don't  know  how 
many  witnesses  we  have  had  here,  word  of  mouth 
testimony  from  this,  that  and  the  other  man,  day 
after  day,  each  day  for  many  days,  about  all  of  these 
things  which  you  have  indicated  this  report  deals 
with,  as  being  things  they  dealt  with;  they  might 
have  to  deal  with,  and  functioning  about  over  many 
years. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Your  Honor  has  admitted 
that  kind  of  evidence  on  the  theory,  I  presume,  that  it 
is  material  for  the  jury  in  determining  and  consider- 
ing the  particular  activities  of  a  defendant  placed  in 
issue  by  this  indictment  to  know  also  something  of 
•  his  attitude  towards  certain  questions.  The  question, 
for  instance  of  violence,  which  is  an  issue  here ;  the 
question  of  direct  action,  what  it  means,  how  it  is 
employed,  and  any  question  of  fact  in  a  case  of  this 
character  having  a  relation  to  tactics  pursued  by  the 
witness  himself  in  strikes,  in  all  respects  similar  to 
the  strikes  placed  in  issue  by  this  indictment.  Now, 
if  it  is  material  to  inquire  as  to  fact  with  which  we 
are  directly  concerned,  what  he  did,  and  what  he 
saw,  and  how  he  conducted  himself,  and  how  he 
directed  the  organization  of  which  he  was  then  one 
of  the  executive  heads,  then  it  is  material  to  prove  his 
conduct  of  those  matters  by  the  findings  of  the  United 
States  Government,  provided  those  findings  were 
made  by  an  officer  of  the  government  authorized  to 
make  the  investigation;  providing  the  report  was 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  15 

published  by  him  in  accordance  with  law,  and  pro- 
vided there  is  any  law  which  says  that  things  so  pre- 
pared shall  be  admitted  in  evidence.  Now,  I  have 
stated  to  your  Honor  that  I  would  show  that  this  re- 
port was  prepared  by  a  man  having  authority,  pur- 
suant to  authority  which,  by  the  way,  is  set  out  in 
detail  in  the  report  itself — that  it  was  then  pub- 
lished pursuant  to  their  authority;  published  by  the 
government  press;  that  it  was  in  the  meantime,  as 
not  only  the  witness  testifies,  but  as  the  report  itself 
shows,  submitted  to  the  parties.  Mr.  Haywood  is  ex- 
pressly named  in  here  as  one  of  those  who  went  over 
it  and  approved  it — approved  on  both  sides,  thus 
giving  additional  evidence  of  the  verity  of  the  find- 
ings, and  I  offer  it  as  a  document  bearing  that  compo- 
site character;  also  receiving  private  endorsement  as 
evidence  of  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Haywood  con- 
ducted this  strike,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  other 
parties  who  also  checked  it  on  their  part,  because 
without  that  I  feel  your  Honor  cannot  know,  and  the 
jury  cannot  know  this  man.  A  big  part  of  his  life's 
story  is  written  in  the  history  of  this  strike. 

THE  COURT:  Now,  suppose  you  did  not  have 
this  book.  Suppose  there  never  had  been  an  investi- 
gation by  a  Federal  officer,  but  suppose — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Will  your  Honor  hear  me 
just  one  word  further.  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt,  but 
I  did  not  quite  get  over  this  fact. 

Now,  if  Mr.  Haywood  had  written  this  thing, 
which  he  virtually  did,  when  he  approved  it,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  known  to  the  law — the  two  acts 
are  identical.  It  he  had  written  this  thing  and  in  here- 
written  a  statement  of  his  attitude  on  the  question  of 
violence  for  instance,  which  he  has  done,  and  written 
it  in  autobiographic  form,  then,  I  say  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted without  any  question,  as  a  declaration  made 
ante  litem  motem  on  an  issue  directly  in  controversy 
in  this  case.  Now,  on  that  ground  alone  it  seems  to 
me  that  while  he  did  not  write  it,  yet  he  did,  we  say, 
approved.     Not  only  does  he  say  so  but  the  book 


16  TESTIMONY  OF 

itself  says  so.  On  that  ground  alone  I  think  it  is  ma- 
terial and  admissible  as  a  declaration  of  his  attitude  ' 
towards  violence,  which  is  going  to  be  one  of  the  big 
things  regarding  which  he  is  going  to  be  questioned ; 
sending  out  inquiries  for  ''tips  from  railroad  work- 
ers," preparing  certain  pamphlets,  about  all  of  which 
he  is  subject,  very  properly,  to  severe  cross-examina- 
tion by  counsel.  But  his  views  at  this  time  on  this 
subject,  in  this  strike,  where  his  views  were  mould- 
ed— where  his  philosophy  was  developed,  are  ma- 
terial  also 

THE  COURT:  In  other  words,  in  the  absence  of 
this  report,  in  the  absence  of  such  investigation,  it 
would  be  open  to  the  jury  in  this  case  to  listen  to 
testimony  from  the  defendants  individual  witnesses 
called  from  Colorado,  and  then  to  witnesses  called 
by  the  prosecution  as  to  Haywood's  activities  out 
there  in  that  strike  at  that  time. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  No,  I  have  not  hinted  at 
that  even,  your  Honor. 

THE  COURT:  No,  I  don't  say  you  have.  But  that 
is  not  a  question  of  materiality? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  would  not  care  to  go  that 
far,  because  I  do  not  care  to  go  that  far.  That  is  an 
academic  question  which  I  dislike  to  take  sides.  I  do 
not  feel  sure  enough  about  that  question,  because  I 
do  not  want  to  go  that  far,  I  have  refrained  from  go- 
ing that  far.  I  offer  this  now  primarily  as  a  statement 
of  the  witness  made  years  ago  on  issues  which  are 
presented  by  this  indictment, — the  issue  of  violence, 
the  issue  of  destruction  and  other  matters  too,  but  it 
is  immaterial  how  many  more  there  were  admissible, 
in  all  respects,  as  any  other  statement  made  by  any 
defendant  on  any  issue  in  this  case  made  prior  to  the 
inception  of  this  controversy. 

THE  COURT:  Now,  suppose  that  instead  of  being 
this  kind  of  a  document,  it  was  a  book  written  by 
somebody? 

MR.  VANDEVEER;  Written  by  him,  sure,  it 
■\vould  be  all  right. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  17 

THE  COURT:  No,  suppose  it  was  a  book  written 
by  somebody  else,  some  independent  person;  inde- 
pendent of  this  thing,  on  the  subject  relating  to  the 
general  subject  under  inquiry  here,  or  one  of  the 
elements  under  inquiry  here.  Suppose  it  antedated 
the  activities  involved  in  this  indictment,  and  the  wit- 
ness had  read  that  book,  and  would  now  take  the 
stand,  and  would  say,  'T  read  this  book  twenty 
years  ago.    It  then  had  my  approval." 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes,  but  it  did  not  then 
have  his  endorsement  within  the  four  corners  of  the 
book,  as  this  has. 

THE  COURT:  Suppose  he  had  written  in  the 
book,  as  he  probably  has  in  books  in  his  private  lib- 
rary, as  you  have  and  as  any  man  has  books  in  his 
library,  his  beliefs  on  that  book,  and  writing  at  the 
end  of  the  book  saying:  'T  absolutely,  unqualifiedly, 
unequivocally  endorse" — a  blank  enorsement — of 
everything  in  there. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  If  he  had  written  that  in 
the  book,  in  all  of  the  books,  so  that  it  became  a  part 
of  the  book  as  circulated,  then  I  would  say  that  the 
book  to  that  extent  would  be  his  book,  and  would  be 
admissible  just  exactly  as  if  he  had  written  the 
whole  thing ;  that  what  my  secretary  does  for  me,  or 
what  somebody  else  does  for  me  and  submits  to  me 
for  my  approval  becomes  mine  as — just  as  absolutely 
as  if  I  had  done  it  all  myself.  I  do  not  mean  to  put 
this  gentleman  in  the  position  of  Mr.  Haywood's 
secretary,  but  it  shows  that  this  was  submitted  to  and 
approved  by  Mr.  Haywood,  and  is  a  statement  of  his 
position  then  in  this  strike.  In  such  manner  that  it 
amounts  to  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  declaration 
by  him  of  his  position  of  that  strike,  as  clear  and  un- 
equivocally as  if  he  had  written  it  himself  and  signed 
it  himself  and  arranged  for  the  printing. 

THE  COURT :  You  say  it  was  submitted  to  him  as 
his  statement? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Submitted  to  him  for  ^p- 
proval, 


18  TESTIMONY  OF 

THE  COURT:  Does  it  purport  to  be  his  state- 
ment? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Well,  I  don't  know— 

THE  COURT:  I  did  not  get  that  impression.  I 
think  the  evidence  was  that  the  investigator  named 
^  Palmer,  under  the  direction  of  Wright,  went  to  Colo- 
rado to  investigate  this  controversy  and  made  an  in- 
vestigation, drew  up  a  report,  and  before  submitting 
it  and  promulgating  it  as  his  report,  submitted  it  to 
Haywood  as  the  representative  of  one  factor  in  that 
controversy;  also  submitted  it  to  the  other  side,  the 
adversary  interest,  and  to  Haywood,  to  get  the  views 
of  both  sides  as  to  what  he  had  written  in  the  way 
of  a  report  before  he  put  it  out.   Do  I  get  you  right? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes. 

THE  WITNESS:  Permit  me  to  say.  Judge,  that 
/  this  book  is  the  result  of  a  demand  by  Governor  Pea- 
body  for  the  regular  soldiers.    President  Roosevelt 
ordered  Carroll  D.  Wright  to  make  this  investigation 
as  it  shows  there  on  the  first  pages. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  would  like  to  find  a  pass- 
age in  the  book  which  I  have  in  mind  so  that  I  could 
submit  it  for  itself. 

THE  COURT:  Two  o'clock,  gentlemen. 
(Whereupon,  at  1:00  o'clock  P.  M.  the  Court  took  a  recess 
until  2:00  o'clock  P.  M.  of  the  same  day.) 

2   o'clock  P.   M.,  August  9,   1918. 
Court  met  pursuant  to  recess. 

(Roll  call  of  defendants  out  on  bail:  All  answered  "Present.") 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION    (Continued) 
By  Mr.  Vanderveer: 

Q. — Another  question  or  two:  Mr.  Haywood, 
what  part  did  you  play  in  the  various  strikes  which 
have  been  referred  to  as  the  labor  disturbances  in 
Colorado  during  the  years  1901  to  1904  inclusive? 

A. — I  was  secretary-treasurer  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners  during  that  period. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  19 

Q. — And  as  secretary-treasurer  what  were  your 
duties  in  connection  with  the  work  of  the  organiza- 
tion in  the  strike? 

A. — As  secretary-treasurer  I  was  also  member  of 
the  Executive  Board  and  had  charge  of  all  the  finan- 
ces, the  papers  and  documents,  paid  all  the  bills  of 
the  organization,  received  all  the  money. 

Q. — And  had  you  any  supervision  of  the  conduct 
of  the  strike? 

A. — Only  as  a  member  of  the  Board. 

Q. — Now,  what  other  of  these  defendants  are  in- 
volved in  that  strike? 

A.- — Vincent  St.  John. 

Q.— Any  others? 

A  JUROR :  Will  you  have  him  talk  a  little  louder, 
please? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes,  a  little  louder,  please, 
Bill. 

A. — I  don't  recall  any  other. 

Q. — Any  one  else?  And  Mr.  St.  John  later  be- 
came general  secretary-treasurer  of  this  organiza- 
tion? 

A. — He  was  my  predecessor. 

Q. — Followed  by  yourself? 

A,— Yes. 

Q. — Were  both  of  you  present  at  the  convention 
in  1905,  at  which  this  organization  was  formed? 

A. — No,  St.  John  was  not  present. 

Q. — Was  not  present.  Did  he,  as  an  official  of  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  become  ex  officio  an 
official  of  this  organization? 

A. — No,  not  an  official.  He  became  a  member  of 
this  organization  by  the  installation  of  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners. 

Q. — Well,  didn't  he  carry  the  same  credentials  in 
this  organization  that  he  did  at  that  time  in  that  or- 
ganization? In  other  words,  was  he  not  a  member  of 
the  Executive  Board? 

A. — He  was  not  a  member  of  ^the  Executive 
Board. 


20  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — How  important  a  part  did  the  Western  Fed- 
eration of  Miners  delegation  play  in  the  formation  of 
this  organization  in  1905,  and  of  its  policies  with 
reference  to  political  action  and  the  adoption  of  the 
industrial  form  of  organization? 

A. — I  should  say  that  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners  played  the  most  important  part;  they  had 
27,000  votes  in  that  convention. 

Q. — Out  of  a  total  of  what? 

A. — Out  of  a  total  of  something  over  fifty  thou- 
sand, I  think,  as  I  recall  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Now,  your  Honor,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  reasons  which  I  have  suggested  for  the 
admission  of  this  report  in  evidence,  I  want  to  suggest 
this: 

Your  Honor  has  already  admitted,  and  was  clear- 
ly, in  my  opinion,  right  in  so  doing,  in  fact  I  cannot 
remember  that  counsel  seriously  questioned  our  po- 
sition in  that  matter — has  admitted  the  report  of  the 
Federal  Government  on  the  Lawrence  strike,  because 
that  strike  was  conducted  by  the  organization  and 
some  the  men  who  are  defendants  in  this  case,  among 
others,  Mr.  Haywood,  and  Mr.  Ettor,  and  on  the 
theory  that  in  determining  whether  or  not  this  or- 
ganization advocated  violence  and  destruction,  in  de- 
terminating what  interpretation  it  gave  to  sabotage 
and  direct  action,  it  was  material  not  only  to  receive 
in  evidence  the  declaration  of  the  men,  whether  for 
or  against  them,  and  counsel  has  asked  many  of  them 
questions  that  of  course  dated  back  as  far  as  1909, 
but  that  it  was  material  also  to  receive  their  interpre- 
tations of  these  things  in  action,  and  the  Lawrence 
strike  affair  offered  an  opportunity  to  determine  what 
was  meant  by  sabotage,  what  was  the  belief  of  these 
men  as  to  violence  by  the  way  they  had  interpreted 
these  things  in  action,  and  actions  speak  louder  than 
words. 

Now  whether  the  entire  organization  is  involved, 
as  perhaps  was  the  case  in  the  Lawrence  strike,  be- 
cause that  strike  had  official  endorsement,  or  wheth- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  21 

er  some  of  the  defendants  alone  are  involved  be- 
cause the  defendants  are  more  directly  on  trial  than 
the  organization  here,  I  think  the  same  principle 
should  be  applied. 

THE  COURT:  What  do  you  say  to  that,  Mr.  Ne- 
beker? 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Why,  it  occurs  to  me  that  there 
is  no  comparison  at  all  between  the  ground  upon 
which  those  documents  were  introduced  and  this,  for 
this  reason,  your  Honor,  and  therewas  an  objection, 
it  is  true,  we  made  an  objection  even  to  the  admis- 
sibility of  any  document  that  had  to  do  with  the 
Lawrence  strike,  but  it  was  finally  ruled  upon  by 
your  Honor  after  asking  counsel  the  question  wheth- 
er or  not  they  claimed  that  was  an  I.  W.  W.  strike. 
Now  that  would  be  the  remotest  point  in  which  the 
court  could  possibly  go,  I  submit — just  because  that 
was  an  I.  W.  W.  strike  it  was  permitted  to  go  in.  Now 
they  ask  to  have  the  boundary  lines  extended  until 
they  can  include  all  of  the  activities  and  all  of  the 
reports  about  any  of  the  activities  of  any  of  the  de- 
fendants, or  any  report  about  any  incident  with 
which  the  defendant  was  connected. 

Now  that  is  an  entirely  different  proposition,  and 
I  think  it  would  be  extending  the  rule  much  too  far. 
If  such  were  the  case,  in  this  particular  case,  at  a 
time  when  Mr.  Haywood  was  not  a  member  of  the 
organization  at  all,  the  conspiracy  here  is  based  upon 
the  proposition  that  these  men  as  I.  W.  W.'s,  these 
men  after  the  formation  of  the  organization,  the  I. 
W.  W.  organization,  were  guilty  of  these  several  con- 
spiracies. 

Now  it  does  not  throw  any  light  upon  that  one 
way  or  the  other  as  to  what  they  did  in  some  other 
capacity.  It  is  not  an  attack  upon  any  of  these  men 
primarily  on  account  of  his  character;  anything  that 
he  did  in  some  other  capacity.  It  is  an  attack  upon 
these  men  as  defendants  in  this  case  for  things  that 
they  did  in  1917,  as  members  of  the  I.  W.  W.  and  as 


22  TESTIMONY  OF 

conspirators  for  the  accomplishment  of  those  partic- 
ular purposes. 

Now  suppose,  for  example,  that  there  were  to  be 
a  man  in  1917,  who  had  at  some  other  time  been  a 
college  professor  or  been  a  preacher,  would  it  be 
within  the  realm  of  possibility  to  think  that  all  of 
the  activities  of  that  man  as  a  college  professor  or  as 
a  preacher,  would  be  admissible  in  evidence  here? 
Of  course  not. 

Now  your  Hoij^r  has  extended  the  extent,  and  the 
rule  of  course  is  as  your  Honor  has  stated  it,  that  a 
brief  introduction  may  be  made  by  the  witness  as  to 
his  past,  so  that  the  jury  may  have  that;  that  is 
within  the  discretion  of  the  court  to  limit  that. 

Now  this  is  an  extension,  it  seems  to  me,  of  any- 
thing that  the  books  justify.  I  never  have  seen  any- 
thing in  my  reading  of  the  law  where  it  could  be 
said  that  a  man  not  only  could  go  on  the  stand  to  in- 
troduce himself  and  to  tell  of  his  past  history,  but  in 
addition  to  that  he  could  read  into  the  record,  when 
the  thing  is  not  going  to  be  controverted,  and  espe- 
cially as  is  the  fact  in  this  case, — he  could  read  into 
the  record  from  the  beginning  of  his  activity  down  to 
the  present  time,  everything  that  was  in  print  con- 
cernmg  anything  that  he  had  to  do  with. 

Now  there  is  no  basis  for  it  and  there  is  a  clear 
distinction.  I  urge  this  simply  because  of  the  fact 
that  it  harks  back  to  the  first  proposition  that  I  sup- 
posed had  been  disposed  of  for  a  long  time,  and  that 
is  an  effort  here — it  seems  to  me  a  conscious  effort — 
to  cloud  the  issues  in  the  case  and  to  detract  the 
jury's  attention  from  the  vital  issues  in  the  case,  by 
bringing  something  of  an  extraneous  character  of 
this  kind  into  it.  I  think  it  would  be  not  in  the  in- 
terest of  justice,  but  would  be,  rather,  to  the  con- 
trary. 

THE  COURT:  Does  this  report  deal  with  what 
you  have  referred  to  as  the  question  of  violence? 

ME.  VANDERVEER :  Yes.  It  deals  with  ithe 
whole  history  of  the  eight-hour  agitation,  both  in 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  23 

the  political  and  in  the  industrial  field.  Of  course  a 
ready  reply  to  the  suggestion  of  counsel  is  found  in 
another  part  of  the  history  of  this  trial,  where,  with- 
out objection  I  am  sure,  from  him,  we  were  permitted 
to  put  in  evidence  here  papers  that  were  not  I.  W.  W. 
papers,  which  contained  declarations  of  defendants 
here  along  the  same  line  on  questions  in  issue.  Now 
I  refer  to  the  old  issues  of  "Socialisti,"  to  the  various 
issues  of  the  ''New  Northwest  ;*'  I  do  not  know  how 
many  more — 

THE  COURT:  I  do  not  want  to  appear  to  place 
the  court  into  the  attitude  of  having  been  generous. 
I  have  tried  to  extend  that  limit,  your  right  in  that 
regard  to  the  utmost  legal  limit,  because  it  was  my 
belief  that  it  was  at  least  remotely  calculated  to  en- 
lighten the  jury.  Now  if  this  was  an  emanation  from 
Haywood's  brain,  it  would  clearly  fall  within  what 
I  have  already  ruled. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  The  report  upon  that  point 
says: 

"Copies  of  sections  of  this  report  which  relate  to 
the  origin  of  the  metaliferous  strikes  have  been  sub- 
mitted for  review  to  the  leaders  on  both  sides,  and 
the  few  comparatively  unimportant  suggestions 
which  they  made  have  been  given  full  consideration 
and  in  several  instances  have  been  incorporated  in 
the  text." 

Among  the  exhibits  here,  your  Honor,  are  many 
letters  and  statements  signed  by  Mr.  Haywood  so 
that — 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
the  few  unimportant  suggestions  had  been  made? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes,  few  unimportant  cor- 
rections, that  means,  of  course.  Now,  as  I  say,  there 
are  many  exhibits  here,  some  letters,  some  statements 
regarding  the  practices  and  the  philosophies  and  be- 
liefs of  the  organization,  which  really  is  nothing  in 
the  world  but  the  forerunner  of  the  I.  W.  W. — the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and  whose  policies 
were  dictated  by,  at  least,  or  stood  in  the  same  rela- 


24  TESTIMONY  OF 

tion  to  the  policy  of  that  organization  as  he  does  to 
this,  and  who  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  those 
strikes  that  he  does  to  these  strikes,  so  I  submit,  your 
Honor,  that  it  is  just  as  material  to  know  what  his 
idea  and  attitude  and  declaration  and  actions  were 
then  as  it  would  be  material  to  know  them  five  years 
or  ten  years  later.  Time  is  after  all  not  the  determin- 
ing question.  It  has  not  been  so  treated  by  either  of 
us.  We  have  none  of  us  hesitated  to  go  back  to  any 
period  where  we  could  find  evidence  bearing  upon 
this  issue. 

THE  COURT:  Does  this  offer  contemplate  the 
reading  of  that  entire  report? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  No.  From  that  standpoint 
I  may  say — 

THE  COURT:  To  some  extent  this  comes  within, 
I  think  it  is  fair  to  say,  it  comes  within  the  domain  of 
discretion. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  realize  it  does. 

THE  COURT:  The  court  has  some  power  over 
such  questions. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  think,  your  Honor,  the 
introduction  of  the  book, — I  assume  you  are  address- 
ing yourself  to  a  question  of  expediency. 

THE  COURT:  Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  The  introduction  of  the 
book  will  probably  save  rather  than  lose  us  time. 
In  other  words,  I  will  cut  out  the  whole  thing  with  the 
witness. 

THE  COURT:  We  are  here  to  enable  the  jury  to 
say  yes  or  no  on  a  certain  question — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Surely. 

THE  COURT  (Continuing)  : — that  was  put  to 
them  early  in  the  month  of  May. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Yes,  without  staying  here 
indefinitely  for  them  to  find  out. 

THE  COURT:  Yes.  Now  whatever  is  calculated 
to  enable  them  to  give  an  answer  to  that  question,  if  it 
is  the  Court's  duty  to  allow  either  litigant  to  give  to 
the  jury. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  .25 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  I  feel  that  the  ad- 
mission of  the  book  will  not  delay  the  progress  of  the 
trial  at  all.  I  will  not  read  copiously  from  it. 

THE  COURT :  My  own  judgment  about  that  legal 
proposition  is  this:  The  frame  of  mind  of  the  de- 
fendant in  a  conspiracy  case  at  the  time  the  thing 
was  done,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  inquiry,  is  ma- 
terial— whether  his  personal  sanity  or  non  compos, 
as  stated  in  its  broadest  form.  Now,  what  his  mental 
condition  as  to  intent  and  so  forth  at  the  time  under 
inquiry  was,  may  have  light  thrown  upon  it  by  evi- 
dence as  to  what  it  was  last  week,  and  in  this  case 
evidence  has  been  offered,  going  to  that  part  of  this 
inquiry  as  to  what  it  was  nine  years  ago.  That  is 
true,  isn't  it? 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Yes. 

THE  COURT:  Go  ahead. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Now,  Mr.  Haywood— 

THE  COURT:  I  am  impelled  to  this  conclusion  by 
two  reasons,  first,  because  of  my  belief  that  there  is 
at  least  a  question  whether  you  are  entitled  to  it  or 
not,  and  being  a  case  of  question,  it  should  be  re- 
ceived in  favor  of  the  defendant.  Secondly,  I  have 
your  assurance  that  this  will  economize  time,  as  a 
matter  of  fact. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  really  believe  it  will,  your 
Honor,  for  this  reason,  that  otherwise  I  must  go  over 
these  incidents,  and  in  addition  to  the  answers,  there 
will  be  the  questions,  which  will  take  a  good  deal 
more  time  in  presenting  the  matter  than  this. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  And  I  suppose  it  is  also  not  to 
be  construed  as  a  reversal  of  the  Court's  general 
position  on  the  proof  of  industrial  conditions  gen- 
erally? 

THE  COURT:  Well,  if  I  have  reversed  myself, 
the  record  will  show  the  fact,  and  it  will  not  be  a 
startling  innovation  of  the  records  of  the  court  here, 
if  I  have  done  that. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  I  wondered  if  the  court 
and  counsel  quite  understood.   I  thought  some  ques- 


26  TESTIMONY  OF 

tions  had  been  settled  here  as  to  the  proof  of  general 
industrial  conditions,  and  it  is  not  the  intention  of- 
the  court  now  to  make  this — 

THE  COURT:  This  is  not  opened  up  for  the  pur- 
pose of  putting  in  proof  of  general  industrial  condi- 
tions. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  wanted  to  understand  that. 

THE  COURT :  It  is  solely  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
abling this  defendant  to  put  before  the  jury  evidence 
of  his  activity  with  respect  to  those  conditions. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  understand. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Mr.  Haywood,  I  do  not 
wish  to  review  the  history  of  these  troubles  in  Colo- 
rado. You  have  read  this  book  many 'times,  I  sup- 
pose? 

A. — No.  not  many  times;  I  have  read  it  more 
than  once. 

Q. — And  you  know  the  story  that  it  tells  of  the 
strikes  from  1901  to  1904  in  Colorado,  with  which 
your  organization  was  connected? 

A. — Yes,  it  reviews  the  strikes  of  the  miners  in 
Colorado  from  1880, 

Q. — And  you  know  also  the  activities  of  your  or- 
ganization? 

A. — Very  well; 

Q. — Is  it  a  reasonably  accurate  and  detailed  nar- 
rative of  those  matters,  of  the  incidents  of  the 
strikes  ? 

A. — I  think  it  is  accurate  in  so  far  as  it  goes, 
covering  many  of  the  details. 

Q. — And  an  accurate  narrative  of  the  history  of 
the  eight-hour  controversy  in  Colorado? 

A. — -Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Well,  then,  passing  this — I  think  I  will  bring 
in  a  few  little  purely  personal  matters — no,  I  won't 
either. 

When  was  the  organization  of  the  I.  W.  W.  first 
considered? 

A.— In  the  fall  of  1904. 

Q. — By  whom  at  that  time? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  27 

^  A. — By  the  officials  of  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners  and  the  officials  of  the  American  Labor 
Union. 

Q. — And  was  any  conference  held  in  the  fall  of 
1904  looking  to  the  calling  of  an  organization  con- 
vention ? 

A. — The  conference  that  you  probably  have  re- 
ference to  was  held  on  the  second  of  January,  1905. 

Q. — The  second  of  January.  Who  were  present 
at  that  conference  ? 

A. — There  were  thirty-six,  if  I  remember  rightly ; 
the  names  of  all  I  could  not  give. 

Q. — How  many  people  were  present  at  that  con- 
ference? 

A. — Thirty-six,  it  seem  to  me. 

Q. — Were  you  one  of  them? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Who  called  the  conference? 

A. — The  Committee  that  was  then  located  here 
in  Chicago. 

Q. — Who  were  the  members  of  the  Committee? 

A. — Clarence  Smith,  William  Trautman,  Estes, 
Hall  and  one  other. 

Q. — Do  you  remember, — you  do,  of  course  re- 
member the  connection  of  Father  J.  J.  Haggerty  with 
the  organization  and  the  movement? 

A. — T.  J.  Haggerty,  yes. 

Q._-T.  J."? 

A -Yes. 

Q. — Who  was  T.  J.  Haggerty? 

A. — He  was  at  one  time  a  Catholic  Priest. 

Q. — And  what  part  had  he  in  the  early  councils 
of  the  organization  and  the  formation  of  the  organ- 
ization ? 

A. — He  was  editor  of  the  ''Voice  of  Labor,"  pub- 
lished by  the  American  Labor  Union. 

Q. — Was  he  a  member  of  the  original  conference, 
January,  1905? 
A. — -Yes,  sir. 


28  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — And  of  the  original  convention  in  June, 
1905? 

A. — Here  in  Chicago. 

Q. — June,  was  it? 

A. — Yes,  June;  he  was  also  a  delegate. 

Q. — And  was  a  member  of  the  organization  froni 
the  beginning? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q. — Of  the  I.  W.  W. ;  at  that  first  convention  the 
original  preamble  was  adopted,  framed  and  adopt- 
ed? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  it  has  been  said  here  that  in  that  form 
it  differed  somewhat  from  the  present  preamble? 

A. — Well,  it  differed  in  asmuch  as  the  new 
amended  preamble  stands,  as  to  political  action — 

Q. — Yes.  In  what  respect  does  the  present  pre- 
amble differ  from  the  original  one? 

A. — It  has  had  the  reference  to  political  action 
stricken  out  and  also  one — perhaps  two,  paragraphs 
added. 

Q. — Otherwise  the  original  preamble  was  the 
same  in  its  statement  of  industrial  philosophy? 

A. — Just  the  same  as  it  stands  now.  I  want  to 
say  that  paragraph  that  has  been  added  is  the  aboli- 
tion of  th^  wage  system. 

Q. — Is  the  original  preamble  correctly  repro- 
duced in  Vincent  St.  John's  book,  ''History,  Structure 
and  Methods,"  pages  4  and  5? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  that  is  the  original. 

Q. — You  think  that  is  correct,  do  you?  Now,  I 
will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  I.  W.  W.  as  it  now 
exists  is  anti-political  ? 

A. — Not  anti-political, — non-political. 

Q. — Non-political;  what  do  you  mean  by  that? 

A. — I  mean  by  that  we  are  an  economic  organiza- 
tion. 

Q. — Are  you  opposed  to  political  action  or  to 
those  who  believe  in  political  action? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  29 

A. — Oh,  no.  There  are  many  of  our  members  who 
believe  and  take  part  in  political  action. 

Q. — What  are  your  own  opinions,  or  rather,  what 
were  they  last  year,  to  avoid  objection,  your  opinions 
regarding  the  efficacy  of  political  action  as  a  means 
of  accomplishing  industrial  reform? 

A. — Well,  I  do  not  think  that  many  industrial  re- 
forms, if  any,  can  be  accomplished  by  political  ac-  ? 
tion. 

Q. — Will  you  please  explain  your  views  on  that 
question? 

A. — Well,  we  will  go  back — 

Q. — Giving  the  various  reasons,  if  you  please  ? 

A. — Well,  we  will  go  back,  for  instance,  to  the 
eight-hour  strike,  or  the  eight-hour  law  in  Colorado. 

Q. — Now,  to  avoid  repetition,  I  will  read  that 
chapter. 

A. — There  are  number  of  references  in  there. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  we  will  read  just  the 
chapter.  Chapter  3.  (Reading  from  Defendant's  Ex- 
hibit, Number  23.) 

Q. — Now  you  were  going  to  say  that  the  history 
of  this  legislation  had  some  bearing  upon  your  atti- 
tude towards  the  question  of  political  expediency, 
the  expediency  of  the  political  method  of  accom- 
plishing industrial  reform? 

A. — I  refer  to,  first,  the  eight  hour  movement,  but 
that  was  not  the  only  law  in  Colorado  that  was 
treated  in  identically  the  same  way.  The  anti-script  ^ 
law  was  passed  in  Colorado,  but  the  script  continued 
as  money,  which  was  a  direct  violation  of  the  coun- 
terfeit laws,  but  it  was  used  for  legal  tender  in  all 
of  the  coal  fields  of  the  state. 

Q. — What  do  you  mean  by  script? 

A. — Well,  it  is  a  money  issued  by  the  coal  com- 
panies. 

Q. — Something  like  the  mill  money  I  have  in- 
troduced here? 

A. — Something  like  the  mill  money  down  in 
Louisiana. 


30  TESTIMONY  OF 


Q. — The  same  thing? 
A. — The  same  thing. 


A. —  ine  same  thmg. 

Q. — Put  out  by  the  coal  companies  and  mining 
companies? 

A. — Yes;  some  metal  and  some  paper  of  different 
denominations. 

Q. — When  was  that  law  originally  passed? 

A. — About  the  same  time  as  the  eight-hour  law. 

Q. — Supposed  to  be  still  in  effect? 

A. — Supposed  to  be  in  effect. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  what  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission  found  as  to  the  existence  of  that 
script  in  1915? 

A. — No,  I  do  not. 

Q. — Go  ahead. 

A. — There  was  still  another  law  against  company 
stores.  The  coal  companies  of  the  southern  part  of 
Colorado  owned  large  stores  at  which  the  employees 
of  the  company  were  compelled  to  trade,  and  this  law 
was  to  prohibit  the  enforcement  of  trading  at  the 
company  stores.  There  was  still  another  law — in  fact 
the  strike  of  the  coal  miners  was  to  compel  the  min- 
ing companies  to  live  up  to  seven  different  laws  that 
were  being  violated;  the  eight-hour  law,  the  anti- 
script  law,  the  company  store  law,  and  one  of  prime 
importance  to  the  miners,  was  the  check-weighman 
law. 

Q. — That  is  a  law  which  gave  them  the  right  to 
employ  a  check  weighman? 

A. — A  check  weighman  of  their  own. 

Q. — To  prevent  the  weighing  of  the  coal — check 
weighing  of  the  coal? 

A. — Yes.  It  had  been  proven  that  the  miners 
were  mining  3800  pounds  of  coal  for  a  ton.  Now  all 
of  these  laws  were  being  violated  at  the  expense  of 
no  one  except  the  miners. 

Q. — Who  had  passed  these  laws? 

A. — The  legislature — 

Q. — Well,  what  element  in  the  state? 

A. — Well,  the  legislature — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  31 

Q.— I  understand,  but  what  element  in  the  state? 

A. — I  was  going  to  say,  it  was  composed  of  dif- 
ferent elements.    For  instance,  this  eight-hour  law — 

Q. — You  are  getting  too  far  into  the  thing,  but 
was  it  labor  legislation  passed  at  labor's  behest? 

A. — Yes,  exactly. 

Q. — Was  there  any  state  in  the  United  States  at 
that  time,  or  has  there  been  since,  any  state  in  which 
organized  labor  was  as  strong  politically  as  it  was  in 
Colorado  at  that  time? 

A. — ^I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — Was  the  vote  on  the  constitutional  amend- 
ment, in  your  opinion,  representative  of  its  compar- 
ative political  strength? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Yet,  after  all  these  years  it  had  failed — 

A. — It  had  failed  to  bring  any  results,  and  the 
same  is  true  in  Idaho  and  Montana. 

Q. — Now,  did  you  finally  get  the  eight  hour  day 
in  Colorado? 

A. — Finally,  when  we  struck. 

Q. — How,  by  strike? 

A. — Why,  the  smelter  men  went  on  strike  in  Den- 
ver. They  closed  down  all  the  smelters  and  the 
Globe  smelter  has  been  closed  ever  since — or  the 
Grant  smelter,  I  mean.  It  has  never  blown  in  from 
the  Fourth  of  July,  1903,  until  the  present  date. 

Q.^ — How  long  did  it  take  labor — how  long  was 
labor  trying  to  get  the  eight-hour  law  by  political 
method? 

A. — Many  years,  eight  or  nine. 

Q. — How  long  did  it  take  it  to  get  it  by  the  indus- 
trial method  when  it  went  after  it? 

A. — Well,  but  a  very  short  time  when  the  mining 
companies  realized  that  they  meant  business. 

Q. — What  other  considerations,  Mr.  Haywood, 
have  influenced  you  in  the  formation  of  your  opinion 
about  the  efficiency  of  political  measures — political 
methods  of  accomplishing  these  industrial  improve- 


A 


32  TESTIMONY  OF 

ments  or  the  inefficiency  of  it,  whichever  you  please 
to  call  it. 

A. — Well  there  is  the  eight-hour  day  of  Utah — 
I  was  working  in  the  Blaine  mine  at  that  time — 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  care  for  any  more  of  that.  I 
had  thought  to  direct  your  attention  to  an  entirely 
different  line.  Let  me  ask  you  what  kind  of  political 
representation  labor  has?  To  what  extent  it  enjoys 
suffrage  in  various  parts  of  the  country? 

A. — Well,  labor  has  but  a  small  political  repre- 
sentation. For  instance,  the  migratory  worker  has 
no  vote.  He  is  working  in  one  state  this  month  and 
the  next  month  in  another  state,  and  he  must  be  in  a 
state  from  one  to  two  years  before  he  is  entitled  to  a 
vote.  The  women  employed  in  industry,  excepting  in 
what  they  call  ten  free  states,  or  ten  white  states, 
have  no  vote.  The  children  under  twenty-one  years 
of  age  have  no  vote,  and  the  black  man  of  the  south 
has  no  vote  at  all.  So  that  the  wage  earners  in  in- 
dustry are  limited  considerably  in  the  matter  of  suff- 
rage. 

Q. — Do  you  believe  it  is  right  that  these  people 
who  work  in  industry  should  have  a  voice  in  these 
matters  which  concern  the  safety  and  operations 
concerning  their  health? 

A. — Why,  I  most  certainly  do.  I  think  that  there 
is  no  one  who  is  more  entitled  to  a  voice  in  the  way 
industry  should  be  run  than  those  who  are  working  in 
the  mills,  factories,  mines,  railroads  and  so  on. 

Q. — Has  anything  else  influenced  you  in  your 
opinion  of  that  matter? 

A. — Well,  there  are  many  other  laws  that  have 
been  passed. 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  refer  to  that.  I  don't  want  to 
lead  you.    Any  other  study  you  have  made? 

A. — As  to  limiting  franchise? 

Q.— No.  As  to  the  propriety  or  efficiency  of  po- 
litical methods;  the  desirability  of  that? 

A. — No ;  I  don't  particularly  recall. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  33 

Q. — Do  you  know  what  the  attitude  of  econo- 
mists and  labor  leaders  is? 

A. — Well,  the  attitude  of  most  social  workers  is 
that  you  can  get  reform  through  legislation,  but  most 
labor  leaders  do  not  think  so,  and  most  industrial  em- 
ployers. 

Q. — What  is  the  argument  by  employers  and 
economists  and  labor  leaders? 

A. — Well,  they  feel  that  it  should  be  done  by 
direct  action.  That  is  to  say,  they  think  that  the 
matter  of  hours  or  minimum  wages  should  be  adjust- 
ed by  the  unions. 

Q. — Well,  is  your  view  of  that  matter  then  in  any 
sense  peculiar  to  itself? 

A. — No,  I  agree  with  it.  I  think  that  the  labor 
unions  should  adjust  the  affairs  of  industry. 

Q. — Do  you  recall  any  place  where  you  have 
found  collected  the  views  of  eminent  economists  and 
eminent  labor  leaders  and  eminent  employers  of 
labor  on  this  question? 

A. — Well,  there  is  a  large  symposium  set  forth 
in  the  New  York  Report. 

Q. — Called  the  New  York  Factory  Commission? 

A. — Yes,  giving  the  ideas  of  a  large  number  of 
people. 

Q. — Is  that  the  sentiment  recorded  there? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  whether  president  Samuel 
Gompers  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  spoke 
his  views  on  the  matter? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  is  objected  to,  as  I  recall  it 
this  is  something  that  is  not  in  evidence. 

THE  COURT:  Sustained. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  All  right.  I  will  withdraw 
the  question. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  now  in  the  preamble  of  the 
I.  W.  W.  as  originally  adopted  and  as  subsequently 
amended,  I  find  the  statement  that  the  working 
class  and  the  employing  class,  as  such,  have  nothing 
in  common ;  no  interests  in  common ;  nothing  in  com- 
mon with  each  other.    What  was  the  origin  of  that 


34  TESTIMONY  OF 

philosophy? 

A. — Well,  the  reason  that  that  appears  there  is 
that  the  men  who  took  part  in  that  convention  real- 
ized that  the  employing  class  and  the  wage-earning 
class,  considering  the  conditions  of  wage  slavery — 

Q. — No,  I  want — was  there  such  a  provision,  in 
substance,  in  the  preamble  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners? 

A. — Yes,  there  was. 
/       Q. — And  in  the  Communist  Manifesto  drawn  up 
by  Marx  and  Engels  way  back  in  1848? 

A. — Well,  you  will  find  it  there  also. 

Q. — So  that  even  that  was  not  original  with  the 
I.  W.  W.? 

A. — No,  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  original. 

Q. — Do  you  believe  that  statement  in  the  pream- 
ble is  true? 

A. — I  do,  indeed. 

Q. — What  are  the  reasons  for  your  belief  on  that 
subject? 

A. — Well,  I  know  the  working  class  in  this  coun- 
try in  different  industries  very  well.  I  know  some- 
thing of  the  employing  class.  I  know  that  the  em- 
ploying class  are  only  interested  in  making  dividends 
and  profits ;  that  the  wage  earning  class  are  in  almost 
identically  the  same  condition  or  position  at  this  time 
as  the  chattel  slave.  There  is  very  little  difference 
between  wage  slavery  and  chattel  slavery.  Now,  it 
seems  to  me  there  are  many  instances  of  where  the 
chattel  slave  was  better  off  than  the  wage  slave  is 
today. 

Q. — Will  you  explain  what  you  mean? 

A. — Well,  take  the  black  man  of  the  South  before 
the  Civil  War.  He  certainly  enjoyed  better  condi- 
tions, notwithstanding  what  is  said  in  Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin — enjoyed  better  conditions  than  he  does  at 
this  time.  He  was  the  slave  of  a  master,  not  all  of 
them  with  a  Simon  Legree,  but  some  masters  who 
took  an  interest  in  their  slaves,  which  were  owned 
bodily — but  their  souls  if  they  had  any,  were  free, 
and  they  were  housed,  clothed  and  fed  and  kept  in 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  35 

good  condition,  with  medical  assistance  and  so  on. 
You  can  recall — everybody  can — 

Q. — What  about  their  homes? 

A. — About  their  cabins,  and  the  songs  they  sang, 
and  the  songs  that  emanated  from  the  Colored  peo- 
ple of  the  South.  There  are  no  songs  such  as  that  to-  t 
day.  There  are  no  Swanee  Rivers  or  no  Old  Ken- 
tucky Homes  or  anything  of  that  kind.  They  have 
been  beaten  down  into  a  condition  where  the  colored 
men  of  the  South  have  been  brought  in  great  hordes 
up  to  East  St.  Louis,  up  to  the  packing  plants  of 
Chicago ;  where  they  are  allowed  to  shift  for  them- 
selves, with  no  one  to  look  after  them  except  you 
might  say  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  who 
tried  to  organize  them,  and  their  lives  are  not  secure. 
Their  happiness  is  not  secure  to  the  same  extent  as 
they  were  when  they  were  chattel  slaves.  They  are 
wage  slaves  now,  and  the  workingmen  who  are  con- 
scious recognize  that  fact;  they  recognize  that  the 
slave  is  one  who  is  compelled  to  give  a  part  of  that 
which  they  produce  to  another,  and  that  is  the  thing 
we  are  trying  to  abolish. 

Q. — Do  you  recall  the  days  of  1893  and  1894,  the 
days  of  the  great  unemployment  in  this  country? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  to  some  extent. 

Q. — Something  of  the  condition  that  the  working 
people  of  those  times — 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — Well,  in  those  days  did  you  observe  any  evi- 
dence of  solicitude  on  the  part  of  the  employers  of 
labor  for  the  welfare  of  the  men? 

A. — There  has  never,  to  my  knowledge,  been  any 
solicitude  on  the  part  of  the  employing  class  for  the 
workers. 

Q. — As  employers? 

A. — As  employers.  During  the  period  that  you 
speak  about  was  the  time  that  they  were  advocating 
a  dose  of  arsenic  for  the  unemployed  workers  that 
they  were  pleased  to  call  a  tramp ;  when  they  were 
suggesting  a  rifle  diet  as  a  good  thing  for  the  unem- 
ployed man  that  they  called  the  hobo.  No  effort  made 


36  TESTIMONY  OF 

to  provide  work  for  them ;  no  effort  made  to  sustain 
them  in  any  way.  That  is  the  way  they  felt,  not 
about  the  foreign  immigrant,  but  about  the  American 
born  citizen  who  happened  to  be  out  of  work.  Yes, 
I  remember  that  very  well.  I  was  out  of  a  job  myself 
at  that  time. 

Q. — How  is  the  attitude  of  the  employer  towards 
his  employees  reflected  in  times  of  strikes,  such  as 
occurred  at  Ludlow  and  in  Cripple  Creek  and  in 
Holly  Grove  an  various  others  that  you  doubtless 
have  in  mind? 

A. — Well,  the  employer  in  some  of  those  in- 
stances was  not  on  the  ground.  He  did  not  see  what 
was  going  on.  The  employer  is  now  a  large  corpo- 
ration and  the  handling  of  the  properties  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  is  left  to  superintendents  and  man- 
agers, and  it  is  their  only  purpose  in  life  to  make  the 
property  pay,  because  upon  the  paying  condition  of 
the  property  depend  their  jobs,  just  the  same  as  the 
unskilled  labor.  The  result  is  that  you  see  conditions 
such  as  prevailed  at  Holjy^Grove,  such  as  at  Ludlow 
and  many  other  places  where  outrages  have  oc- 
curred against  the  workers. 

Q. — And  at  Bjsbee? 

A. — Yes,  Bisbee.  To  recount  them  would  be  nec- 
essary to  tell  a  long  story. 

Q. — Do  those  conditions  furnish  the  background 
or  foundation  for  your  belief  in  the  philosophy  of 
the  preamble? 

Q. — It  is  my  experience,  my  personal  experience 
and  the  experience  of  the  men  with  whom  I  am  best 
acquainted  and  the  knowledge  that  I  have  gained  by 
visiting  different  industries  that  has  led  me  to  believe 
that  the  preamble,  in  so  far  as  that  part  of  it  which 
says  there  is  nothing  in  common  between  the  employ- 
er and  the  employed,  is  absolutely  true.  Now  take, 
for  instance,  the  employing  class,  the  sons  and  daugh- 
ters of  the  employing  class ;  those  who  frequent  Palm 
Beach  and  Newport.  You  can  see  a  splendid  illus- 
tration of  what  I  mean  at  Newport.  Just  across  the 
river  there  is  Fall  River,  Massachusetts.  In  Fall  River 


WM.  D..  HAYWOOD  37 

a  large  textile  center,  many,  many  women  are  em- 
ployed among  the  workers  in  the  industry  there,  and 
the  mortality,  the  infant  mortality  of  that  town  is 
400  per  cent.  400  per  cent.  Four  hundred  children 
die  out  of  every  thousand  born.  They  enjoy  the  same 
atmosphere;  they  enjoy  the  same  splendid  condi- 
tions of  climate,  but  it  is  the  work  they  do  at  the 
looms  in  the  factories  and  in  the  homes  that  they 
live  in.  While  over  in  Newport  they  are  giving 
monkey  dinners  and  all  this  kind  of  stuff,  just  for  the 
diversification  of  the  unemployed,  if  you  will — not 
unemployed,  but  unemployable.  Another  instance, 
there  is  a  family  which  Mr.  Nebeker  is  well  acquaint- 
ed with,  the  Penrose  and  MacNeils,  who  owm  the 
Utah  Consolidated  Copper  Company,  or  a  large  in- 
terest in  it.  I  saw  only  a  short  time  ago  where  they 
attended  a  dog  wedding — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  let  us  see  if  this  is  rel- 
evant. 

THE  WITNESS:  — given  in  Colorado  Springs — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  does  not  seem  to  be  ma- 
terial. It  is  something  that  he  had  seen  recently 
about  some  supposed  friend  of  mine.  I  never  heard 
of  them  before. 

THE  WITNESS:  Well;  I  understood  you  was  em- 
ployed by  the  Copper  Company.  Maybe  I  am  mis- 
taken. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  you  are  very  much  mis- 
taken. But  the  point  is,  I  do  not  think  that  we  ought 
to  be  regaled  with  something  that  he  has  seen  in  the 
newspapers  since  this  trial,  or  anything  that  did  not 
actuate  him  during  the  period,  or  at  least  prior  to  the 
:ime  of  the  indictment. 

THE  WITNESS:  What  I  wanted  to  tell  about  was 
:his  dog  wedding.  Pekinese  Poodles,  which  was 
:he  daughters  of  Frank  Harvey  and  Mrs.  Penrose  and 
Mrs.  McNeill  attended  with  all  the  formal  function 
3f  nice  society  when  these  poodles  were  married. 
^Tow  that  is  the  kind  of  stuff  that  the  employing 
ilass  do.  That  is  the  kind  of  stuff  we  do  not  want  to 
jee  them  do.    We  think  that  those  people  ought  to  be 


38  TESTIMONY  OF 

busy  doing  their  work,  just  the  same  as  the  work- 
ing class.  We  don't  want  to  take  anything  away  from 
them,  but  we  want  to  prevent  them  from  taking  any- 
thing more  away  from  us.    That  is  the  idea. 

Q. — You  have  been  through  the  South,  Mr.  Hay- 
wood? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — In  connection  with  your  activities  in  this  or- 
ganization ? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Were  you  down  there  during  the  days  of  the 
organization  of  the  timber  workers  of  the  South? 

A. — I  attended — I  spoke  all  over  the  lumber 
camps  of  the  South  and  attended  the  convention  of 
the  Brotherhood  of  Timber  Workers  at  the  time  they 
decided  to  join  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World. 
Q. — That  was  originally  an  independent  organ- 
ization, v/as  it  not? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — In  which  a  man  named  J.  Smith  had  a  good 
deal  to  do? 

A. — A.  L.  Emerson  and  J.  Smith. 
Q. — I  read  a  pamphlet  here  some  time  ago. 
A.— Yes. 

Q.^— Declarative  of  their  position? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now  when  you  were  down  there  did  you 
have  occasion  to  study  the  industrial  conditions  in 
the  turpentine  camps  and  the  mill  towns  and  so 
forth? 

A. — I  learned  much  of  the  conditions  because  it 
was  a  close  hand  study  with  me,  and  I  found  that  in 
the  turpentine  camps  there  was  this  peculiar  condi- 
tion: There  were  women, — black  women,  it  is  true, 
— but  they  had  a  permanent  home,  and  those  places 
were  usually  in  the  swamps,  and  the  men  employed 
about  the  mills  lived  in  those  homes,  but  when  they 
lost  their  jobs  they  lost  their  homes.  There  was  no 
marriage  ceremony  among  them  at  all.  I  learned 
also  that  one  of  the  means  that  the  lumber  companies 
adopted  of  keeping  the  workers  on  the  job  was  not 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  39 

by  good  pay  but  by  distribution  of  cocaine  and  one 
other  kind — 

Q. — Morphine? 

A. — No.    Heroin. 

Q. — Heroin? 

A. — Yes,  to  the  workers.  They  knew  that  when 
they  became  addicted  to  these  drugs,  that  they  were 
sure  to  return  to  their  jobs.  It  was  the  strongest 
method  of  holding  them, — stronger  even  than  the 
chains  of  chattel  slavery  or  the  whips  of  the  turpen- 
tine bosses,  who  were,  by  the  way,  usually  white 
men.  There  were  camps  down  there  that  were  fenced 
in,  with  eight  foot  fences,  and  if  you  went  to  one 
of  those  towns  known  as  a  mill  town,  you  got  your 
mail  out  the  United  States  Post  Office  through  a 
hole  in  the  fence.  Those  are  the  kind  of  conditions 
that  prevail  down  there.  I  attended  this  convention 
in  Alexandria,  and  I  was  invited  to  speak.  I  learned 
in  the  few  minutes  that  I  was  there  preceding  this 
invitation  that  the  black  men  were  out  in  the  other 
room.  ''Well,"  I  said,  "If  you  expect  me  to  speak  you 
want  all  of  the  workers  here,  don't  you"  ?  They  said, 
''Yes,  but  it  is  against  the  law  of  the  state  for  black 
and  white  men  to  meet  together."  I  said,  "Why,  you 
w^ork  in  the  mills  together,  don't  you?  You  are 
working  out  here  in  the  forest  together,  you  are  on 
the  job  all  the  time  together.  You  have  met  here  in 
this  convention  to  determine  the  conditions  that  are 
going  to  prevail  in  these  mills."  I  said,  "Go  out  and 
get  those  black  men  and  bring  them  in  here  and 
never  mind  the  law.  This  is  one  law  that  we  have 
got  to  break  now  while  we  have  an  understanding 
about  what  we  are  going  to  do  with  this  convention." 
They  went  out  and  brought  the  black  men  in  and  we 
had  a  joint  meeting,  perhaps  the  first  time  in  Louisi- 
ana. 

Q. — What  had  been  the  nature  of  your  personal 
activities  throughout  the  Colorado  strike,  just  in  a 
general  way.  I  don't  want  you  to  go  into  it  in  detail. 
Were  you  a  delegate  or  simply  writing  pay  checks, 
or  what  were  you  doing? 


40  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Both.  I  spoke  some.  I  spoke  at  this  meeting 
of  the  miners  in  the  assembly  in  the  Senate. 

Q. — Did  you  advocate  any  violence  or  disorder? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Is  there  any  suggestion  in  this  report  that 
you  ever  did? 

A. — No.  You  will  find  many  suggestions  there 
that  I  did  not. 

Q. — Did  you,  yourself,  commit  any  violence  or 
disorder? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — Were  you  subjected  to  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Got  plenty  of  nicks  in  your  head  to  show  for 
it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now,  you  went  through  that  strike  a  leader, 
— one  of  the  leaders  for  the  Western  Federation,  did 
you? 

A. — Well,  that  is  what  they  called  me,  yes. 

Q. — What  was  your  reward  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  strike? 

A. — Well,  we  never  concluded. 

Q. — Had  you  ever  been  in  Idaho? 

A. — Yes,  but  the  strike  was  not  concluded  when 
I  went  to  Idaho ;  was  not  really  concluded  until  I  got 
back.  In  fact,  I  wrote  the  resolutions. 

Q. — I  understand,  but  up  to  the  time  you  were 
kidnapped  had  you  been  to  Idaho? 

A. — No.  Well,  I  had  worked  in  Idaho  previously. 

Q. — Ten  years  before? 

A. — Yes,  sir — not  ten  years. 

Q. — Six  years  before? 

A. — About  four  years  before. 

Q. — Had  you  been  at  any  time  then — well,  how 
long  prior  to  the  death  of  Governor  Steunenberg  had 
you  been  in  Idaho? 

A. — I  left  Idaho,  it  seems  to  me,  in  1901. 

Q. — And  when  did  he  die? 

A.— In  1905. 

Q. — Four  years? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  41 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  had  occasion  to  return  to  Idaho  after 
his  death  a  while? 

A. — Yes,  we  were  taken  back  to  Idaho. 

Q. — How  were  you  taken? 

A. — On  a  special  train. 

Q. — Well,  how  else?    Describe  the  proceeding  a 
little  bit. 

A. — Well,  after  Governor  Steunenberg  was  killed 
three  of  us,  George  Pettibone,  Charles  Moyer  and 
myself  were  arrested  in  Denver.  We  were  arrested 
on  a  Governor's  warrant  issued  by  the  Governor  of 
Idaho.  I  have  just  forgotten  his  name — Goodwin,  or 
something  like  that — at  that  time —  and  we  were  put 
in  the  county  jail;  no  chance  to  see  counsel.  The 
next  morning  early,  about  five  o'clock,  we  were  taken 
out  of  the  County  jail  and  put  in  carriages  and  driven 
to  the  depot  where  we  were  loaded  on  a  special  train, 
and  with  the  guards  and  militiamen,  sheriffs  and  pol- 
iticians from  both  states,  we  were  hurried  off  to  • 
Boise,  Idaho,  making  world-beating  time.  I  think 
they  made  that  trip,  some  of  it,  at  seventy  miles  an 
hour.  When  we  arrived  in  Boise  we  were  taken  to 
the  state  penitentiary  and  there  were  placed  in 
murderers'  robes;  no  charge  and  no  arraignment. 
On  either  side  of  me  were  men  who  were  condemned 
to  die.  Out  in  front,  the  death  watch — he  did  not 
seem  to  be  watching  those  other  two  men,  but  kept 
his  eye  on  me  continually,  and  in  the  cell  adjoining, 
the  fellow  on  my  left  was  Pettibone,  and  then  an- 
other man  and  then  Moyer,  In  the  right  hand  upstairs 
cell  was  for  a  short  time  Vincent  St.  John.  We  v/ere 
held  in  the  penitentiary  there  for  some  weeks.  Every 
other  prisoner  in  the  penitentiary  except  we  three  f 
were  permitted  some  exercise.  But  our  food  was 
shoved  under  the  door  as  you  would  to  a  wild  animal, 
and  examined  very  carefully  before  it  v/as  given  to 
us.  The  electric  lights  were  taken  out  of  the  cells, 
and  not  until  considerable  publicity  had  been  arous- 
ed, were  we  allowed  to  go  out  even  into  the  corridors 
that  were  in  front  of  the  cells.  We  were  taken  from 


42  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  penitentiary  to  Caldwell,  where  they  had  a  little 
county  jail  that  set  out  behind  the  court  house;  just 
a  little  place.  We  were  held  there  for  some  couple 
of  weeks,  and  it  was  finally  agreed  that  they  would 
divide  us  up  and  take  us  to  the  different  county  jails, 
but  later  determined  that  they  would  keep  us  over 
in  Boise  in  the  Ada  County  jail,  and  there  we  were 
held  for  fifteen  months,  until  my  trial  began,  which 
lasted — 

Q. — Now,   by  the   way,   where   was   Governor 
Steunenberg  killed? 

A.— At  Caldwell. 

Q.— What  county? 

A.— At  Caldwell. 

Q.— What  county? 

A. — Nampa  County. 

Q. — In  what  county  were  you  tried? 

A. — Ada  County. 

Q. — How  did  the  case  happen  to  be  removed  from 
Nampa  County  to  Ada  County?  Who  asked  for  the 
removal  ? 

A. — I  think  the  state. 

Q. — By  virtue  of  what  law? 

A.-^A  change  of  venue. 

Q. — When  was  the  law  passed  by  which  that 
change  of  venue  was  granted? 

A.— That  was  an  ex  post  facto  law.  It  was  passed 
after  we  were  arrested. 

Q. — Do  you  know  of  any  other  state  that  has  a 
law  which  permits  the  prosecution  to  take  a  change 
of  venue? 

A. — I  do  not.  There  was  another  ex  post  facto 
law  passed  that  gave  the  state  as  many  challenges 
as  the  defense  had. 

Q. — -You  were  represented  in  that  case  by  Clar- 
ence Darrow  and  a  man  named  Richardson? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  other  counsel? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Your  case  was  tried  first? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  43 

Q. — Resulting  in  what? 
A. — An  acquittal. 

Q. — When  you  were — how  long  after  the  acquit- 
tal were  you  released? 

A. — Right  away. 

Q. — And  what  did  you  then  do,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — Well,  the  first  thing  I  did  was  to  go  to  the 
hospital  to  see  my  mother,  and  then  from  there 
home  to  see  an  invalid  wife.  After  I  had  visited  the 
two  I  went  to  another  hospital  to  see  John  H.  Mur- 
phy, who  was  the  attorney  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners,  and  after  a  few  days,  loaded  them  all 
aboard  a  train  and  returned  to  Denver;  arrived  on 
time,  the  first  time  the  D.  &  R.  G.  had  made  time 
for  many  years — if  ever — where  I  received  a  re- 
markable reception  by  the  workers  of  the  town — 
well,  the  citizens  of  the  city,  you  might  say.  Many 
thousands  of  them  at  the  depot,  some  of  them  to 
greet  me  and  others  through  curiosity. 

Q. — Let  me  ask  you  just  in  passing,  you  were 
once  a  candidate  of  Colorado? 

A. — I  ran  for  Governor  of  Colorado  while  I  was 
in  jail  in  Idaho. 

Q. — Who  proposed  your  candidacy? 

A. — I  was  then  a  member  of  the  Socialist  Party. 
Nominated — 

Q. — Did  you  solicit  the  nomination? 

A. — No,  but  I  accepted  it. 

Q. — Were  you  able  to  do  anything  in  your  own 
behalf? 

A. — Not  much. 

Q. — Who  were  the  candidates  against  you? 

A. — There  was — 

Q. — Judge   Benjamin  Lindsay,   for   one? 

A. — Well,  the  Kid  Judge.  By  the  way,  I  beat 
him  by  some  thousand  votes  or  more.  There  was,  it 
seems  to  me  it  was  Peabody  and  Adams. 

Q.— Alva  Adams  and  Governor  Charles  Pea- 
body? 

A. — Yes,  but  Alva  Adams  was  unseated.  And 
Peabody  elected  for  twenty-four  hours  when  he  re- 


44  TESTIMONY  OF 

signed — no,  no,  that  is  previous.  Buthtell,  I  guess 
it  was  that  was  elected  that  time ;  Chancellor  Buth- 
tell.  I  was  thinking  of  another  election. 

Q.— Buthtell? 
A.— Yes. 

Q. — Dean  of  the  University  of  Nebraska? 

A. — Yes,  sir — of  Colorado. 

Q. — Of  Colorado,  I  mean. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  I  interrupted  your  story  of  your  activ- 
ities shortly  following  your  release  from  the  peni- 
tentiary or  jail,  at  least,  in  Idaho. 

A. — Well,  after  getting  back  home,  in  the  very 
early  days  of  August  I  came  on  here  to  Chicago  on 
a  speaking  tour. 

Q. — For  whom? 

A. — For  Pettibone,  that  is,  Pettibone  and  Moyer. 
Moyer  had  been  released  then  on  bail. 

Q. — Now  what  arrangements  were  made  for 
your  compensation  on  that  trip  ? 

A. — Well,  I  got  my  usual  stipend. 

Q. — Your  usual  salary? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — What  part  of  the  country  did  you  cover? 

A. — I  spoke  only  in  Chicago  and  Milwaukee  at 
that  time. 

Q. — Where  did  you  speak  in  Chicago? 

A. — At  Luna  Park  and  Riverview  Park. 

Q. — How  many  people  did  you  address  in  River- 
view  Park? 

A. — There  were  66,000  paid  admissions. 

Q. — And  in  Luna  Park? 

A. — 45,000  paid  admissions,  and  then  they  tore 
the  fence  down. 

Q. — And  in  Milwaukee? 

A.— 37,000. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  did  you  at  one  time  lecture 
as  a  matter  of  private  occupation,  for  a  short  time? 

A. — Well,  I  have  not  done  much  else. 

Q. — In  what  portions  of  this  country  have  you 
lectured? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  45 

A. — I  have  crossed  the  continent  from  coast  to 
coast  several  times ;  crossed  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
from  Friday  Harbor  to  Sydney,  Cape  Breton  Isle.  I 
made  two  trips  across  the  water.  I  have  spoken  in 
Norway,  Denmark,  Sweden,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Eng- 
land, Wales,  France,  Italy. 

Q. — What  is  the  largest  audience  you  ever  ad- 
dressed? 

A. — Why,  I  think  perhaps  this  one  at  Riverview 
Park.  No,  I  had  a  bigger  audience  than  that  that 
time.  It  was  at  the  Tower  in  London.  There  was  no 
possibility  of  eliminating  it.  It  was  just  a  crowd — the 
street  from  one  end  to  the  other. 

Q.— Do  you  recall  a  meeting  you  addressed  on 
the  Boston  Common  in  behalf  of  the  Lawrence 
strikers? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — How  many  people  did  you  address  there? 

A.- — Why,  I  should  say  fifty  or  sixty  thousand. 

Q. — Have  you  any  idea  how  many  people  you 
have  addressed  in  your  life? 

A. — No.  It  would  be  hard  to  estimate. 

Q. — What  were  you  doing  immediately  prior  to 
the  Lawrence  strike? 

A. — I  was  on  a  lecture  tour  with  the  International 
Socialist  Review. 

Q. — How  much  did  you  make  when  you  were 
lecturing  as  a  private  enterprise?  How  much  could 
you  make  a  week  or  a  month? 

A. — Well,  with  them  I  made  $50  a  night  and 
fifty  per  cent  over  a  certain  number  of  tickets  sold. 

Q. — What  was  your  average  monthly  earnings  at 
that  line  of  work,  each  week  or  if  it  is  easier  to  put 
it  any  other  way? 

A. — I  should  say  for  the  short  period  that  I  was 
with  them  that  it  would  average  well  over  a  thousand 
dollars  a  month. 

Q. — You  were  engaged  in  doing  that  when  the 
Lawrence  strike  occurred? 

j^ Yes. 

q!— What  did  you  do"? 


46  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — ^Well,  I  was  in  New  York  City  on  the  night 
that  Joe  Ettor  got  a  telegram  from  Lawrence.  By  the 
way,  I  had  debated  that  night  with  Morris  Hilquitt. 
Ettor  was  not  much  inclined  to  go  to  Lawrence,  but 
I  coaxed  him  and  insisted  that  he  should  go  up  there 
and  help  those  strikers.  But  he  went  only  with  the 
assurance  that  I  would  come  later  if  he  thought  I 
could  be  of  help.  I  also  insisted  on  Giovannitti  go- 
ing, and  he  was  not  much  inclined  to  leave  his  sweet- 
heart at  that  time,  but  she  put  in  an  oar  with  me 
and  Giovannitti  went  to  Lawrence  also.  I  think  it 
was  about  a  week  when  I  went  up  there  myself  on 
their  solicitation,  on  the  request  from  the  strike  com- 
mittee. 

Q. — You  were  at  that  time  lecturing  under  the 
same  arrangement? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  you  abandoned  that? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  you  get  any  compensation  from  any  one 
about  Lawrence? 

A. — Well,  not  much ;  I  had  something  like  three 
or  four  hundred  dollars  in  my  pocket  when  I  went  up 
there,  and  I  came  away  broke.  The  chairman  of  the 
strike  committee,  Billy  Yates,  he  wrote  me  after- 
wards saying  that  they  had  entirely  forgotten  that  I 
could  possibly  need  something  while  there,  so  that 
while  in  Lawrence  I  really  did  not  get  much  pay. 
{  Q. — Now  why  did  you  go  over  there — give  up 
lucrative  employment,  Mr.  Haywood,  and  mix  up  in 
that  strike? 

A. — You  might  ask  me  why  have  I  been  mixed  up 
in  any  of  these  strikes  ? 

Q. — Well,  all  right.  I  will  ask  you  that.  Why 
have  you? 

A. — Because  I  have  been  very  anxious  to  secure 
'  the  condition,  first  of  my  own  children  and  of  other 
people's  children,  and  I  have  had  a  dream  about  see- 
ing the  conditions  of  all  working  men  improved,  and 
a  good  position  or  a  lucrative  job  did  not  seem  to  cut 
much  figure  with  that,  or  as  opposed  to  that  idea. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  47 

Q. — Now  what  did  you  receive  as  salary  when 
you  were  working  for  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners? 

A. — I  got  $170  a  month. 

Q. — What  do  you  receive  from  the  I.  W.  W.? 

A. — $28  a  week  now. 

Q. — What  is  the  most  you  have  ever  received 
from  the  I.  W.  W.  ? 

A. — What  is  the  most  I  have  ever  received  from 
the  I.  W.  W.? 

Q. — You  have  ever  received,  weekly  salary? 

A. — $28  a  week. 

Q. — $28  a  week.  Do  you  think  you  could  earn 
that  much  out  lecturing? 

A. — Oh,  yes.  I  could  earn  many  times  that  much. 

Q. — What  has  been — 

A. — I  might  say,  Mr.  Vanderveer,  that  when  I 
first  came  out  of  jail  I  received  some  very  flattering 
offers  on  the  lecture  field.  I  was  offered  $7,000  for 
one  week  in  Denver.  I  was  offered  $15,000  for  forty 
lectures  in  California.  I  was  offered  $4,000  a  week 
on  the  Star  Circuit,  Milwaukee  and  these  theaters 
around  here.  I  was  offered  quite  a  while  later,  $300 
a  night  from  Redpath's.  I  could  have  made  money. 
It  was  not  a  question  of  money. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  accept  any  of  those? 

A. — "None  of  them  at  all. 

Q. — In  lieu  of  that  you  went  lecturing  for  the  de- 
fense of  Moyer  and  Pettibone? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — At  $150  a  month? 

A. — And  expenses. 

Q. — Have  you  during  the  time  that  you  have 
been  general  secretary-treasurer  of  the  I.  W.  W.  had 
any  private  source  of  income. 

Have  you  done  any  work  or  accepted  any  com- 
pensation from  anybody  else  than  the  organization? 

A. — None  of  any  kind. 

Q. — When  you  went  into  Lawrence  were  you  at 
any  time  during  that  trouble  arrested? 

A. — -Yes,  I  was  arrested. 


48  .  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — How  long  were  you  in  jail? 

A. — I  was  not  in  jail. 

Q. — At  Paterson — you  were  connected  with  the 
Paterson  strike  ? 

A. — Yes.  Maybe  I  had  better  tell  you  about  this 
Lawrence  strike. 

Q. — Go  ahead. 

A. — I  had  gone  somewhere  on  a  little  short  speak- 
ing trip  when  I  found  that  there  was  a  warrant  at 
Lawrence  for  me,  and  made  arrangements  with  a 
committee  by  which  I  could  attend  this  meeting  on 
the  Boston  Common.  And  we  managed,  perhaps  by 
a  little  audacity,  to  reach  that  meeting.  We  went 
direct  to  the  state  capitol,  a  place  where  they  na- 
turally would  not  look  for  me,  perhaps,  and  from 
there  down  on  to  the  Common,  and  as  soon  as  I  got 
into  the  crowd  there  was  no  possibility  of  any  ar- 
rest by  any  force  of  policemen  that  they  might  have 
had.  So  I  spoke,  and  after  the  meeting  the  crowd 
just  broke  away  and  I  marched  down  to  where  I  had 
left — or,  rather  where  we  had  intended  the  automo- 
bile should  be,  and  I  stepped  into  the  automobile  of 
the  officer  and  was  taken  to  one  of  the  stations  in 
Boston.  Arrangements  were  already  made  for  bond 
in  the  event  of  my  arrest.  Fred  Moore  went  along 
with  me.  I  was  released.  I  later  appeared  in  a  court 
in  Lawrence  where  before  one  of  the  justices,  when 
I  was  called  up  to  plead  whether  I  was  guilty  or  not 
guilty,  I  told  them  that  I  was  guilty  of  nothing  except 
trying  to  get  more  bread  and  better  conditions  for 
the  workers  in  Lawrence.  Nothing  further  came  of 
that  trial. 

Q.-— That  ended  it? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  were  connected  with  the  Paterson 
strike,  the  silk  weavers? 

A. — I  was  at  Paterson  altogether  close  to  six 
months. 

Q. — Were  you  arrested  there? 

A.— Yes. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  49 

Q. — How  long  a  time  altogether  did  you  spend  in 
the  jail  there? 

A. — I  think  it  must  have  been  about  three  weeks, 
but  part  of  that  was  of  my  own  volition. 

Q._Why? 

A. — Well,  bond  had  been  prepared  for  me — 
that  is,  secured  for  me,  but  there  were  a  number  of 
other  workers  in  jail,  about  between  eighteen  or  nine- 
teen hundred  arrested  during  the  Paterson  strike.  An 
appeal  had  been  made  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus — 

Q.— In  your  behalf? 

A. — Yes,  and  I  did  not  want  to  get  out  on  bail 
until  that  habeas  corpus  had  been  acted  upon,  be- 
cause it  would  mean  my  release  and  continued  im- 
prisonment of  a  number  of  others. 

Q. — It  would  defeat  the  application  as  a  test 
case? 

A. — Yes.  I  was  arrested  on  a  charge  of  disorder- 
ly conduct. 

Q. — And  tried  on  that? 

A. — Yes,  I  was  tried  on  that  and  convicted. 

Q. — Convicted? 

A. — Yes,  and  sentenced  to  six  months  hard  labor. 

Q. — And  appealed? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — What  did  the  appeal  court  say  about  your 
conviction  ?  ^ 

A. — Well,  the  Appellate  Court  reversed  the  deci- 
sion and  in  the  course  of  its  remarks  said  that  I  could 
not  be  held  responsible  because  people  had  come  to 
the  Oval  to  hear  me  speak ;  or  I  could  not  be  held  re- 
sponsible because  I  was  an  individual  of  some  promi- 
nence that  people  wanted  to  look  at.  The  officer  tes- 
tified that  there  was  some  noise  on  this  Sunday  after- 
noon. He  said,  "Well,  the  Salvation  Army  makes 
noise  Sunday  afternoon,  and  you  don't  arrest  them." 
They  said,  "You  would  not  arrest  me  if  I  was  march- 
ing out  of  the  city  of  Paterson,  would  you,  and  the 
case  is  dismissed." 

Now,  the  fact  of  the  matter  was  that  I  went  there 
to  speak  at  a  baseball  park  on  Sunday.   In  Paterson 


50  TESTIMONY  OF 

there  are  no  parks  except  this  one  open  space  where 
they  play  baseball;  no  parks  for  the  children  to 
play;  in  fact  the  children  of  Paterson  don't  play 
much.  They  are  working  in  the  factories  and  serving 
apprenticeships  from  the  time  they  are  13  or  14.  I 
was  to  speak  in  this  ball  park  and  when  I  arrived 
there  was  a  tremendous  crowd  of  people ;  there  were 
about  twenty  thousand  strikers  in  Paterson,  The 
Lieutenant  of  Police  who  came  down  there  told  me 
that  I  would  not  be  allowed  to  speak,  so  I  said,  *'If 
you  say  so,  I  suppose  that  goes."  The  strikers  got 
around  and  they  said,  ''Well,  what  are  we  going  to 
do?"  Well,  I  said,  "It  we  can't  speak  here  we  will 
go  to  Haledon."  Haledon  was  a  little  town  adjoin- 
ing. Without  further  ado  or  without  any  other  words 
to  the  police  official,  I  started  with  the  strikers  for 
guides  towards  this  little  town  of  Haledon.  And  we 
were  within  a  half  a  block  of  the  city  limits  when  I 
was  arrested,  with  three  others;  arrested  for  trying 
to  get  out  of  town,  I  suppose.  At  least  I  was  brought 
back  and  put  in  jail. 

Q. — Now,  how  many  times  were  you  arrested 
during  the  Cripple  Creek  strike? 

A. — I  think  only  once  during  that  time. 

Q. — Only  once? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — How  many  times  were  you  subjected  to  per- 
sonal violence  during  the  Cripple  Creek  strike? 

A. — Well,  no  serious  personal  violence  except 
once. 

Q. — That  was  at  the  Denver  depot? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — What  occurred  then? 

A. — Perhaps  I  had  better  precede  that  by  telling 
you  what  I  had  done  previously.  I  got  out  what  we 
i  called  the  'Tlag  Poster."  This  was  a  large  sized 
poster  with  a  picture  "of  the  American  flag  and  across 
the  top,  the  question:  "Is  Colorado  in  America",  and 
on  each  stripe  inscribed  an  indictment  of  the  Colo- 
rado government,  you  might  say — of  the  state  of- 
ficials.   I  don't  remember  all  of  those  indictments 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  51 

but  the  first  was:  "Habeas  Corpus  denied  in  Colo- 
rado." "Free  Speech  Throttled  in  Colorado."  Mar- 
tial Law  Declared  in  Colorado."  Thirteen  of  those 
indictments.  Under  the  flag  at  about  where  the  staff 
would  be  I  had  a  picture  of  Henry  Maki,  a  Finn,  who  ^ 
had  been  arrested  in  Telluride  because  he  refused  to 
clean  out  a  cesspool,  he  was  chained  to  a  telegraph 
pole,  handcuffed  and  left  in  the  snow  in  a  blizzard. 
Under  that  picture  I  had,  "Under  the  folds  of  the 
American  flag  in  Colorado."  Along  about  the  stripes 
of  the  flag — well,  you  have  got  a  picture  of  the  flag 
here. 

Q. — Somewhere,  yes — I  was  just  wondering — 

A. — It  was  with  that  Cripple  Creek  book  that  was 
there,  taken  out  of  the  safe.   The  flag  was  taken  out. 

Q. — It  is  in  the  "Pinkerton  Labor  Spy"? 

A. — Yes.  You  have  got  one  there. 

Well  under  the  stripes,  I  had  these  words  written: 
"If  Old  Glory  has  been  desecrated  it  is  by  the  Re- 
publican Governor  of  Colorado  who  has  violated 
every  principle  for  which  it  stands."  Then  an  appeal 
to  the  workers  of  the  country,  urging  that  if  they 
wanted  to  help  break  the  chains  of  this  man  who  is 
chained  to  the  telegraph  pole,  and  the  chains  of  the 
other  workers  in  Colorado,  that  they  should  send 
donations  to  the  secretary-treasurer.  Well,  Moyer 
was  arrested  because  his  signature  was  on  this  flag. 
By  the  way,  he  w^as  not  in  any  way  responsible  for  it.  ' 
I  drafted  that  flag  and  wrote  every  word  that  was  on 
it  myself.    I  got  up  one  night  at  2  o'clock. 

Q. — What  was  the  purpose  of  getting  it  up  in 
this  form?    What  was  your  idea? 

A. — Well,  the  idea  was  this:  As  I  said  in  these 
indictments,  thirteen  of  them — every  principle  for 
which  the  American  flag  stood, — the  entire  Bill  of 
Rights  had  been  violated  by  the  people  who  were 
supposed  to  uphold  the  American  flag.  I  thought  a 
good  deal  of  the  American  flag  at  that  time,  and 
probably  do  much  more  than  some  others  at  this 
time,  but  what  I  wanted  to  do  was  to  put  this  indict- 
ment on  the  emblem  of  freedom  to  show  just  how  far 


52    ■  TESTIMONY  OF 

they  had  gone.  It  seemed  to  me  that  there  was  no 
more  striking-  ornament  than  the  American  flag. 
Well,  Moyer  was  arrested  and  taken  to  Telluride  and 
held  for  some  110  days  in  the  bull  pen  there. 

Q._For— 

A. — For  desecrating  the  flag. 

Q. — For  desecrating  the  flag? 

A. — Yes.  During  that  time  an  appeal  had  been 
made  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  he  was  brought 
from  Telluride  to  Denver. 

Q. — By  the  way,  do  you  remember  the  history  of 
this  habeas  corpus  proceedings  in  the  Moyer  case? 

A. — Yes,  I  remember  them.  I  know  that  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  w^as  denied,  and  that  he  was  taken 
back  to  Telluride,  but  when  he  was  to  arrive  in  Den- 
ver, I  and  the  office  force, — the  stenographers  and 
everybody  around  the  office  went  down  to  the  depot 
to  meet  him.  By  the  way,  I  was  under  arrest  then 
myself  on  the  same  charge,  but  I  was  out  looking  for 
bail,  and  I  had  a  $5  deputy  with  me  and  kept  him 
with  me  all  of  the  time. 

Q. — You  had  yourself  arrested,  didn't  you? 

A. — Well,  a  friend  swore  out  the  warrant. 

Q. — What  was  the  purpose  of  that,  Mr.  Hay- 
wood? 

A. — Well,  that  is  so  that  I  would  not  have  to  go 
to  Telluride.  This  deputy  v/as  with  me  all  of  the 
time,  eating  with  me  and  sleeping  with  me. 

Q. — How  much  was  your  bail? 

A.— $300. 

Q.— You  could  have  gotten  that  any  time? 

A. — Oh,  yes. 

Q. — Well,  why  didn't  you  get  it? 

A. — Well,  if  I  had  been  released  on  bail  I  could 
have  been  taken  to  Telluride. 

Q. — So  you  had  the  deputy  with  you  out  looking 
for  bail? 

A. — Exactly. 

Q. — For  how  long? 

A. — Oh,  I  suppose  a  matter  of  thirty  or  forty 
days.  So  while  this  deputy  was  with  me  then  I  went 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  53 

to  the  depot  to  meet  Moyer.  Well,  there  was  a  com- 
pany of  Denver  soldiers — not  soldiers,  militiamen,  at 
the  depot,  and  there  was  another  detachment  with 
him,  12  of  whom  got  off  the  train  with  Moyer  and 
then,  12  more,  and  then  Captain  Wells. 

Q. — Buckley  Wells? 

A.— Buckley  Wells. 

Q. — Who,  by  the  way,  is  manager  of  one  of  the 
mines? 

A. — 'The  Smuggler  Union.'' 

Q. — Referred  to  in  this  report? 

A. — Yes.  When  Moyer  got  off  the  train  and 
walked  along  with  these  soldiers  in  front  and  be- 
hind, I  walked  up  and  shook  hands  with  him.  This 
Buckley  Wells  came  running  up  and  put  his  hands  on 
either  of  our  shoulders  and  pushed  us  apart.  I  turned 
around  to  see  who  it  was  and  when  I  recognized 
this  Buckley  Wells,  without  thought,  I  struck  him^, 
and  knocked  him  back  into  the  soldiers  that  were  be- 
hind. Then,  each  one  of  them  in  turn,  some  of  them 
together,  struck  me.  I  might  say  that  before  that  we 
had  had  a  conference  in  the  office  of  John  H.  Mur- 
phy, whom  we  called  ''Eight-Hour  Murphy,"  where- 
by it  was  agreed  between  Buckley  Wells  and  other 
mine  managers  from  Telluride  that  there  would  be 
no  strike ;  that  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  a 
strike  in  San  Magill  County;  that  they  would  return 
after  this  conference  and  adjust  the  wages.  We  made 
some  concessions  about  how  the  wages  should  be  ad- 
justed— ^taking  a  little  off  this  fellow  and  putting 
it  onto  the  lower  paid  one,  but  it  was  thoroughly 
understood  that  the  miners  would  not  go  on  strike, 
and  that  the  trouble  would  be  settled  in  Telluride  as 
soon  as  they  got  back.  Well,  instead  of  it  being  set- 
tled, they  immediately  called  for  the  soldiers  and 
the  governor  sent  the  troops  there,  and  Buckley 
Wells  was  made  a  Captain.  The  first  time  I  saw  him 
afterwards  was  this  instance  at  the  depot,  and  when 
I  looked  in  his  eyes,  I  did  not  see  the  uniform  or  any- 
think  else,  and  just  saw  that  he  had  violated  that*' 
tacit  agreement  that  we  had  entered  into  in  Mur- 


54  TESTIMONY  OF 

phy's  office,  and  I  just  struck  him.  As  I  say,  they  then 
hammered  me.  The  only  trouble  was  there  were  too 
many  of  them  or  I  would  not  have  been  here  to  tell 
the  story.  They  knocked  me  in  between  the  pas- 
senger coaches,  and  one  of  them  pulled  his  gun 
down  on  me  and  was  going  to  fire.  It  was  then  Gen- 
eral Bell,  or  some  one,  knocked  up  his  gun,  and  said, 
"Take  him  along  with  Moyer.''  We  were  marched  up 
to  the  Oxford  Hotel  where  one  of  the  militiamen — he 
was  known  in  the  mining  district  there  as  Conroy 
iKid.  He  was  a  gunman  proper.  He  had  only  been 
enlisted  temporarily  for  that  Colorado  war.  He  said 
to  me,  *'Sit  ciOwn."  I  said,  "I  don't  care  to  sit  down." 
He  reached  for  his  gun,  and  as  he  did,  I  hit  him. 
The  rest  of  them  all  came  rushing  up  until  finally 
they  got  me  back  against  the  wall,  and  this  Conroy 
Kid  came  running  on  the  outside  of  the  crowd  and 
reached  over  and  caught  me  a  lick  on  the  head.  A 
shorter  fellow  with  a  gun  caught  me  right  in  here 
(indicating)  just  where  the  breast  plate  fits  on  this 
bone.  Quite  a  lump  in  evidence  there  that  never  will 
go  dov/n.  That  just  faded  me,  practically  knocked 
me  out.  Then,  I  was  taken  from  there  up  to  a  room 
upstairs  and  when  the  union  men  of  Denver  began 
to  mobilize  and  they  said  that  the  militia  was  never 
going  to  leave  that  city  with  me  as  a  prisoner,  and  I 
guess  it  dawned  upon  Governor  Peabody  that  they 
meant  what  they  said.  He  sent  word  down  to  Ham 
Armstrong,  Chief  of  Police,  to  come  over  to  get  me. 
So  I  was  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  militia  through 
the  instructions  of  E.  F.  Richardson,  who  was  our 
attorney,  then  was  placed  in  the  County  Jail  at 
Denver  to  be  held  there  until  Richardson  notified 
Armstrong  that  I  could  be  released. 

Q. — Now,  in  what  strike  of  prominence  with 
which  you  have  been  connected  since  the  Cripple 
Creek  strike  have  you  not  been  either  arrested  or 
subjected  to  personal  violence  in  consequence  of  your 
strike  activities? 

A. — Well,  in  Akron  I  v/as  not  arrested.  I  narrow- 
ly escaped  it.    When  I  arrived  at  Akron,  when  the 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  55 

rubber  workers  were  on  strike,  the  chief  of  police — 
I  venture  to  say  about  150  or  200  deputies  were  at 
the  depot  to  meet  me.  When  I  got  off  the  train,  a 
plainclothes  man  said,  "Mr  Haywood?"  I  said, 
"Yes."  He  said,  "The  chief  wants  to  see  you."  I 
said,  "Where  is  he?"  "Right  there."  I  stepped  over 
to  the  chief.  "Now,"  he  said,  "Mr.  Haywood,  I  want 
to  notify  you  that  you  are  treading  on  very  thin  ice. 
There  must  be  no  inflammatory  speeches  while  you 
are  in  our  city."  He  went  on  to  say  that  there  was  a 
good  deal  of  disturbance  in  connection  with  the 
strike,  and  I  listened  to  him,  and  I  said,  "Have  you  a 
warrant  for  my  arrest?"  He  said,  "No."  "Well,"  I 
said,  "Step  aside,  I  am  going  up  to  see  the  boys  up 
on  the  hill  just  above.  I  am  going  up  this  way."  So 
I  was  not  arrested  in  Akron. 

Q. — Did  you  make  any  inflammatory  speech? 

A. — Oh,  I  never  made  any  inflammatory  speech- 
es. I  went  to  another  place,  I  think — Little  Falls 
where  the  textile  workers  were  on  strike,  another 
place  I  was  not  arrested. 

Q. — How  many  times  have  you  been  arrested 
for  strike  activities,  or  been  subjected  to  personal 
violence  for  strike  activities,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — Well,  I  have  not  been  arrested  any  times. 

Q. — Have  you  ever  been  convicted  on  any 
charge? 

A. — No,  never  convicted. 

Q. — Now,  do  you  like  being  arrested  and  thrown 
in  jail? 

A.— Do  I  like  it? 

Q.— Yes. 

A.— No. 

THE  COURT:  Nine  o'clock  tomorrow  morning. 

(Whereupon  at  4:00  o'clock  P.  M.,  Court  adjourned  until 
9:00   o'clock  the  following  day,   Saturday,  August  10,   1918.) 
Saturday,  August  10,  1918,  9  o'clock  A.  M. 
(Roll   call  of  defendants:  All  answered   'Tresent.") 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION    (Continued) 
By  Mr.  Vanderveer: 
Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  reference  has  been  made  dur- 


56  TESTIMONY  OF 

ing  the  trial  of  this  case  to  a  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  I.  W.  W. — to  a  clause  in  the  constitu- 
tion providing  that  soldiers,  I  believe,  are  not  eligible 
to  membership ;  I  do  not  recall  the  exact  language. 

A. — Providing  v^hat? 

Q. — That  soldiers  or  members  of  militia  or  some- 
thing. 

A. — There  is  no  such  clause  in  the  constitution. 

Q. — I  see.  What  has  been  the  attitude  of  the 
organization  on  that  matter,  and  why? 

A. — I  don't  think  the  organization  itself  has 
ever  taken  any  attitude  in  regard  to  soldiers;  the 
unions  and  branches  have. 

Q. — And  do  you  know  of  other  labor  organiza- 
tions which  do  not  or  have  not  in  the  past,  admitted 
militiamen  or  soldiers  to  their  membership? 

A. — Why,  there  are  very  many  of  them  that  re- 
fuse to  admit  a  militiaman, — the  United  Mine  Work- 
ers— 

Q. — What  is  the  reason? 

A. — The  reason  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  militia- 
men have  always  been  used  to  break  strikes,  have 
always  been  used  against  the  working  class. 

Q. — And  are  militiamen  regarded  as  wage  work- 
ers within  the  meaning  of  your  constitution? 

A. — Militiamen  as  a  rule  are  wage  workers  and 
mustered  in  a  community  from  among  the  wage 
workers,  and  recognized,  I  think,  among  themselves, 
simply  as  a  club,  a  dancing  academy,  or  something 
of  that  kind. 

Q. — I  will  ask  you  whether  during — did  you 
keep  a  file  in  your  office  of  men  expelled  from  the 
organization  for  various  causes? 

A. — Yes,  we  had  such  a  file. 

Q. — Was  it  an  accurate,  honest  file? 

A. — Well,  it  was  a  file  of  the  action  taken  by  the 
unions. 

Q. — The  various  locals  or  branches? 

A. — Yes. 

Q. — And  you  got  the  information  through  cor- 
respondence with  them,  I  presume? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  57 

A. — That  is  the  only  way. 

Q. — And  did  you  record  that,  that  is  what  I  am 
getting  at,  in  a  file  in  your  oflSce? 

A. — Recorded  it  and  reported  it  in  the  bulletins. 

Q. — Now  was  the  record  of  that  matter — of  those 
matters,  an  honest  record?  Did  you  keep  an  honest 
record  of  the  people  who  were  expelled  and  the 
reasons,  or  try  to? 

A. — Always  on  a  card  I  think  that  was  printed 
on  the  top :  ''Expelled  member"  and  gave  the 
reasons,  the  date,  the  union — I  have  a  record  here 
somewhere. 

Q. — I  understand.  Was  there  any  reason  for 
doctoring  that  record? 

A. — Not  at  all. 

Q. — Making  it  untruthful? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Was  it  seized  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment in  the  raid? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  as  seized,  was  it  the  complete  record 
of  that  matter? 

A. — Oh,  absolutely,  no  changes. 

Q. — I  show  you  a  drawer  from  the  filing  case 
marked  Defendants'  Exhibit  427.  Please  look  at  it 
and  tell  the  jury  if  that  is  the  record  you  refer  to? 

A. — This  is  the  record  taken  from  headquarters 
and  here  are — 

Q. — Where  has  it  been  since  the  5th  of  last 
September? 

A. — Here  in  the  Federal  Building,  on  the  8th 
floor,  I  suppose. 

Q. — You  saw  'it  there  last  night  and  had  it 
brought  down  here? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Been  in  custody  of  the  Department  of  Jus- 
tice? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now  I  will  ask  you  whether  at  any  time  after 
the  outbreak,  at  least  after  the  declaration  of  war 
by  the  United  States,  any  member  of  the  I.  W.  W. 


58  TESTIMONY  OF 

was  ever  expelled  for  entering  military  service? 

A. — I  don't  think  there  has  ever  been  an  instance 
since  war  was  declared. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  offer  this  record  in  evi- 
dence, your  Honor,  in  proof  of  that  fact. 

(Record  referred  to  was  received  in  evidence  and  marked 
Defendants'  Exhibit  427,  and  handed  to  the  jury.) 

A. — You  will  find  in  there  records  of  members 
that  have  been  expelled  for  joining  the  army  or  navy 
in  other  countries. 

Q. — During  that  period? 

A. — No,  not  since  the  United  States  went  into 
the  w^ar. 

Q. — Not  since  the  United  States  went  to  war. 
Who  brought  that  down  to  court  this  morning?  One 
of  the  employees  of  the  Department  of  Justice? 

A. — Yes. 

Q. — Have  you  at  any  time  since  the  seizure  by 
the  Government,  had  it  under  your  custodv  or  con- 
trol? 

A. — Never.  I  want  to  say  in  connection  with  this 
question  of  expulsion,  that  no  member  who  has  been 
expelled  for  joining  the  army  or  navy  of  any  coun- 
try, has  ever  appealed  to  the  executive  board  or  the 
convention,  so  that  they  have  never  been  tried  except 
by  the  branches  or  unions, — never  have  been  ex- 
pelled by  the  organization.  Mr.  Vanderveer,  last 
night  when  the  court  adjourned  you  will  remember 
you  left  me  in  jail.  You  asked  me  if  I  had  ever  been 
convicted,  and  to  that  I  replied  no.    Well,  I  have. 

Q. — When  and  where  was  that? 

A. — That  was  in  the  state  of  Washington. 

Q. — And  on  what  charge? 

A. — Smoking  a  cigarette. 

Q. — That  was  in  North  Yakima? 

A. — That  was  in  North  Yakima,  and  also  in  El- 
lensburg. 

Q. — Have  you  ever  been  convicted  of  any  other 
offense? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Ever  been  convicted  of  conspiring  to  incite 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  59 

violence,  or  anything  of  that  character? 

A. — Never. 

Q. — Or  for  any  activity  in  connection  with  a 
strike?  4    -  jf 

A. — Never  been  convicted  on  any  other  offense. 

Q. — Yesterday  you  testified  about  a  flag  upon 
which  you  had  had  printed  thirteen  indictments 
against  the  Colorado  mine  owners  or  against  Colo- 
rado. Is  this  Defendants'  Exhibit  428  a  copy  of  that 
poster? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  offer  this  in  evidence. 

(Defendants'  Exhibit  428  was  received  in  evidence.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— "Is  Colorado  in  Amer- 
ica," Reading  from  the  inscriptions  on  the  stripes  of 
the    flag.      ''Martial    Law^    declared    in    Colorado." 
"Habeas  Corpus  suspended  in  Colorado." 
What  had  that  reference  to? 

A. — Well,  that  is  the  case  of  Charles  H.  Moyer 
and  other  appeals  that  we  made  for  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus.  It  will  be  remembered  that  General 
Bell,  Adjutant  General  Bell  said:  "To  hell  with 
habeas  corpus.    We  will  give  them  post  mortems." 

Q. — "Free  press  throttled  in  Colorado."  What  did 
that  mean? 

A. — It  means  that  there  were  several  papers 
that  were  put  out  of  commission,  for  instance,  the 
"Victor  Record"  was  entered  at  night  by  a  mob  who 
destroyed  the  linotype  machines  and  the  stones  on 
which  they  made  up  their  forms,  and  scattered  the 
type  around,  arrested  the  office  force. 

Q. — What,  by  the  way,  was  done  by  the  militia 
to  the  stores  maintained  in  the  strike  district  by  the 
Western  Federation? 

A. — Well,  there  v/ere  a  number  of  stores  thati 
were  owned  by  the  Western  Federation,  and  they 
were  totally  demolished,  put  out  of  commission  by 
the  militia  and  the  Citizens  Alliance. 

Q. — What  were  those  stores  used  for? 

A. — They  were  a  medium  of  distributing  relief 
to  the  strikers. 


60  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — During  the  strike? 

A. — During  the  strike. 

Q. — And  just  in  a  word,  what  other  properties 
did  the  Western  Federation  acquire,  and  what  other 
efforts  did  it  make  to  take  care  of  the  interests  of  its 
members  and  the  strike? 

A. — Well,  in  nearly  every  camp  in  the  Cripple 
Creek  district,  we  had  a  splendid  hall  usually  with  a 
room  below  and  the  hall  above,  which  was  their 
meeting  place,  and  each  hall  was  equipped  with  a 
fine  library;  for  instance,  in  the  Cripple  Creek 
library  there  were  8,000  volumes. 

Q. — What  about  hospitals? 

A. — In  Telluride  they  had  a  hospital  that  was 
erected  by  the  Union  at  a  cost  of  something  over 
$30,000,  equipped  in  first-class  shape  as  a  hospital, 
with  all  modern  convenient  arrangements,  and  the 
Union  provided  for  the  doctor.  This  also  in  Silverton, 
where  there  was  a  $30,000  hospital  and  the  reason 
for  having  the  hospitals  was  that  previously  the 
men  who  were  injured  in  the  mine  or  who  were  sick 
were  taken  care  of,  or  it  was  said  they  were  taken 
care  of,  by  company  doctors.  The  result  was  that 
they  were  butchered  up  and  allowed  to  die  or  turned 
out  crippled,  so  they  went  to  work  and  arranged  for 
their  own  hospitals. 

Q, — And  incurred  this  tremendous  expense  to 
get  away  from  the  Company  Hospital? 

A. — Well,  that  is  true,  not  only  of  Colorado  but 
throughout  the  jurisdiction. 

Q. — On  this  subject  of  the  suppression  or  throt- 
tling of  the  press,  do  you  recall  any  action  taken  by — 
I  don't  know  what  they  call  it — the  Association  in 
Denver,  what  was  that?  The  Citizens'  Alliance  of 
Colorado,  do  you  know  what  that  organization  was? 

A.— Yes. 

Q, — Do  you  know  any  action  taken  by  that  or- 
ganization to  influence  the  attitude  of  the  press  in 
describing  incidents  of  the  strike  ? 

A. — Well,  while  the  strike  was  on,  the  Citizens' 
Alliance,  which  was  composed  of  business  men,  poli- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD        *  61 

ticians,  lawyers,  membership  almost  entirely  other 
than  the  working  class,  they  put  a  boycott  on  the 
Denver  Times,  the  Denver  News  and  badly  crippled 
those  newspapers  bn  account  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  giving  some  space  to  the  strikes  that  were  then 
on  in  Colorado. 

I  might  say  in  connection  with  that,  that  Senator 
Patterson  was  then  the  owner  of  the  Rocky  Mountain 
News  and  the  Denver  Times,  and  he  was  in  Wash- 
ington ;  the  Mine  O-wners  Association  had  introduced 
a  resolution  through  Senator  Scott  of  West  Virginia. 
I  appealed  to  Senator  Patterson  to  know  if  he  would 
introduce  a  reply  for  us, — the  Senator  from  Colorado. 
He  said  yes,  and  we  prepared  a  reply  of  some  28  or 
30  thousand  v/ords,  and  sent  it  on.  The  Senator 
introduced  that  document  in  the  Senate  and  had  it 
published  in  the  Congressional  Record,  and  issued 
and  distributed  under  his  frank.  There  was  but 
the  change  of  one  word  of  the  manuscript  as  we 
sent  it  to  him.  We  had  referred  to  John  Campion  of 
Leadville  as  a  liar.  Campion  was  a  friend  of  the 
Senator,  and  he  wanted  that  word  changed.  He  did 
change  it,  and  as  I  say,  had  it  printed  and  then 
telegraphed  to  me  to  have  this  document  printed  in 
the  Sunday  edition  of  the  Rocky  Mountain  News. 

I  went  up  to  see  the  managing  editor,  and  he 
said,  *'It  is  impossible,  it  cannot  be  done,  it  cannot  be 
set  up."  Well,  I  said,  ''We  can  probably  arrange 
that."  We  had  already  set  it  up  to  run  it  in  the 
Miners  Magazine,  and  I  said,  if  you  can  use  the  type 
we  can  furnish  you  with  the  type  already  set  up. 
"Well,"  he  said,  ''I  will  go  down  and  see  the  fore- 
man." He  went  down  below  and  made  arrangements 
with  the  foreman  that  the  type  would  be  set  up 
later. 

So  they  ran  that  entire  article  in  the  Sunday  edi- 
tion of  the  Rocky  Mountain  News,  some  eighty  thou- 
sand circulation,  and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  that 
the  Citizens  Alliance  put  a  boycott  on  the  press,  on 
that  particular  paper  in  Colorado. 

Q. — Just  to  refer  back  to  the  matter  of  this  file 


62  *  TESTIMONY  OF  I 

of  discharged  members,   expelled  members,  I  will^ 
ask  you  whether  or  not  you  have  now  in  headquart- 
ers any  cards  which  have  been  sent  in  by  men  join- 
ing the  military  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States, 
over  in  the  headquarters,  in  the  various  unions? 

A. — I  think  there  are  two  or  three  over  there  , 
where  the  members  have  sent  in  their  cards. 

Q. — Two  or  three?  ; 

A. — Not  more  than  that,  I  believe. 

Q.— To  be  kept  by  them? 

A. — Yes.   These  are  to  be  kept  by  them  until  they 
come  back  from  the  war.    A  number  of  them  are 
taking  their  cards  with  them  and  paying  their  dues  i 
in  advance,  and  we  have  received  some  remittances 
from  France  to  be  applied  on  dues. 

Q. — Have  you  applied  them? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  want  to  read  extracts 
from  the  second  chapter  of  this  Carroll  D.  Wright  re- 
port, entitled  "The  Citizens  Alliance  of  Colorado." 
I  omit  the  introduction;  the  Constitution,  Article  9, 
Section  1,  the  form  of  the  application  for  member- 
ship shall  be  as  follows: 

(Reading.) 

Are  any  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Western  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  secrets? 

A. — The  Western  Federation  of  Miners? 


-The  Western  Federation  of  Miners. 

-We  had  executive  sessions,  yes. 

-Were  their  records  secret? 

-No. 

-Did  they  have  any  pledge  of  secrecy? 

-We  had  a  ritual. 

-Did  they  have  a  pledge,  pledging  the  mem- 


bers to  secrecy? 

A. — No,  not  to  secrecy. 

Q,— Anything  you  had  to  keep  secret? 

A. — Nothing  at  all;  we  pledged  the  members  to 
loyalty,  and  its  ritual  is  in  the  hands  of  practically 
every  Mine  Owners'  Association.  I  might  say  that 
one  clause  of  it  said :   'This  organization  exacts  noth- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  63 

ing  that  conflicts  with  the  duty  you  owe  to  your 
God,  your  country  or  your  fellowmen." 

Q. — And  anything  secret  in  the  I.  W.  W.? 

A. — Everything  is  open,  we  have  no  ritual,  no 
closed  doors,  no  closed  records. 

MR.  VaNDERVEER:  From  a  statement  signed 
James  C.  Craig,  president  of  the  State  Alliance,  I 
read  this :     (Reading  same  to  the  jury.) 

"Where  interests  are  conflicting,  it  is  self  ap- 
parent that  if  one  side  be  organized  and  the  other  be 
unorganized,  the  advantage  will  accrue  to  that  side 
which  is  organized."   Do  you  endorse  that  idea? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — Is  that  the  reason  you  organized  on  indus- 
trial lines? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

MR.  VANDERVEER   (Reading  continued)  : 

"The  Alliance  and  the  Association  alleged  that 
the  Federation  was  'a  socialistic  and  criminal  or- 
ganization' and  therefore  that  their  attitude  towards 
it  was  justifiable." 

Does  that  have  a  familiar  sound,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — Yes,  I  have  heard  that  many,  many  times. 

MR.  VANDERVEER   (Reading  continued)  : 

The  Fourth  stripe  contains  this  indictment:  "Bull 
pens  for  Union  men  in  Colorado?  What  had  that 
reference  to? 

A. — Well,  in  Cripple  Creek  they  used  the  armory 
for  what  I  refer  to  there  as  a  bullpen.  They  had 
over  1600  men  imprisoned  in  that  armory.  There 
had  also  been  bull  pens  at  Leadville,  on  a  previous 
occasion,  in  Cripple  Creek  and  one  at  Telluride. 

Q. — "Free  speech  denied  in  Colorado."  What 
does  that  refer  to? 

A. — That  means  that  in  none  of  the  strike  dis- 
tricts were  meetings  of  any  kind  allowed  to  be  held. 
The  halls  were  closed  and  picnics  and  entertainments 
were  not  permitted  to  be  conducted.  There  was 
pretty  generally  throughout  the  state  a  campaign 
against  free  speech,  and  free  assembly,  and  the 
reason  for  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  Citizens' 


64  TESTIMONY  OF 

Alliance   was  that  they  were  afraid  to  allow  the 
truth  to  be  told. 

Q. — ''Soldiers  defy  the  courts  in  Colorado." 

A. — That  has  particular  reference  to  the  oc- 
currence in  Cripple  Creek  when  three  men— 

Q. — Victor  Poole  and  some  others? 

A. — Sherman  Parker  and  Kennison  were  held  in 
the  bullpen  and  were  by  the  writs  of  habeas  corpus 
brought  into  the  court  and  the  court  room  was  sur- 
rounded by  soldiers. 

Q. — I  will  read  that  from  here. 

A. — All  right. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Reading  from  page  215  of 
the  Government  Report:  ''Suspension  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus."    (Reading) 

Q. — Had  the  Governor  of  Colorado  or  governor 
of  any  state  authority,  as  you  understand  it,  to  sus- 
pend the  writ  of  habeas  corpus? 

A. — No,  but  Colorado  was  not  working  under 
the  constitution  then.   You  remember  Major  Thomas  ij 
McClellan  said,  "To  hell  with  the  constitution." 

Q. — I  see.  Do  you  know  where  that  authority  is 
lodged,  as  you  understand,  where  that  authority  to 
suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  lodged  by  the 
constitution  ? 

A. — I  do  not  think  there  is  any  place  where  there 
is  a  right  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

MR.  VANDERVEER   (Reading  continued)  : 

Q. — Now  on  the  subject  of  deportations  referred 
to  in  the  "Citizens  Alliance"  chapter:  (Reading  con- 
tinued.) 

Mind  you,  this  is  in  January. 

Q. — What  is  the  weather  around  Cripple  Creek 
in  January? 

A. — Very  bad,  heavy  snow,  cold. 

MR.  VANDERVEER   (Reading  continued)  : 

Q. — -What  honest  and  lawful  pursuit  was  there 
around  there? 

A. — The  miners  were  on  strike. 

Q. — Mining? 

A. — The  mining  industry,  yes. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  65 

Q. — They  were  given  until  that  date  to  go  to 
work  in  the  mines? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

MR.  VANDERVEER   (Reading  continued)  : 

Q. — By  the  way,  what  came  of  that  trial? 

A. — Well,  the  men  that  were  charged  were  ac- 
quitted and  Tom  Foster  is  now  a  member  of  the  leg- 
islature in  Arizona,  one  of  the  defendants. 

Q. — And  do  you  remember  any  disclosure  about 
the  employment  of  two  Pinkerton  detectives  in  con- 
nection with  that  incident? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  What  is  that  question?    I  didn't 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q,— Do  you  remember  any 
disclosures  growing  out  of  the  trial,  regarding  the 
activities  or  connections  of  two  Pinkerton  detective 
agents  with  the  wrecking  of  that? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  is  objected  to,  if  the  Court 
please  as  immaterial. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  the  one  just  referred 
to  here  is  the  trial  of  some  Western  Federation  of- 
ficials on  a  charge  of  wrecking  a  train,  attempting 
to  wreck  a  train.  Well,  I  withdraw  it,  it  doesn't  mat- 
ter.   I  think  that  is  all  of  that. 

Q. — ''Wholesale  arrests  without  warrant  in  Colo- 
rado." Some  of  the  incidents  I  have  been  reading 
about? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — "Constitutional  right  to  bear  arms  questioned 
in  Colorado." 

A. — Well,  that  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
Cripple  Creek  District  an  order  was  issued  that  all 
of  the  miners  should  turn  their  arms  over  to  the 
military  authorities,  and  they  visited  the  homes  of  all 
the  workers  gathered  up  whatever  firearms  they 
had. 

Q. — Shot  guns  or  anything  else? 

A. — Shot  guns,  six  shooters,  rifles,  whatever  they 
may  have  had  in  their  possession.  These  were  taken 
into  charge  by  the  military  and  almost  immediately 
after  began  the  deportations. 


66  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Was  there  any  instance  in  which  the  miners, 
or  any  miner,  used  such  arms  during  the  strike? 

A. — Yes,  there  was  a  crowd  of  the  Citizens  Al- 
liance went  to  the  house  of  George  Seitz  and  he 
opened  and  returned  fire  on  them ;  they  shot  through 
the  door  at  his  home  and  he  probably  killed  two  or 
three  of  them. 

Q. — That  was  in  his  own  home? 

A. — In  his  own  home. 

Q. — Is  that  the  only  incident  you  recall? 

A. — That  is  the  only  one. 

Q. — Corporations  corrupt  and  control  adminis- 
tration in  Colorado."  That  is  the  incident  I  referred 
to  in  connection  with  the  Citizens  Alliance? 

A. — That  is  Governor  Peabody  and  the  Citizens 
Alliance. 

Q. — "Right  of  fair,  speedy  and  impartial  trial 
abolished  in  Colorado." 

A. — Well,  the  fact  that  there  were  hundreds  of 
men  arrested  and  hundreds  deported,  and  you  may 
say  thousands  held  in  this  bullpen  for  months,  is  the 
reference  there. 

Q. — The  foundation? 

A. — The  reference  made  in  the  statement  there 
that  a  speedy,  fair  and  impartial  trial  was  abolished. 

Q. — ''Citizens  Alliance  resorts  to  mob  law  and 
violence  in  Colorado." 

A. — I  think  that  is  evidenced  by  the  white  cap- 
pers' outrages  in  every  camp  in  Colorado. 

Q. — "Militia  hired  to  corporations  to  break  the 
strike  in  Colorado."   Who  paid  the  militia? 

A. — Well,  the  coal  mining  companies  guaranteed 
the  state  certain  stipulated  sums,  I  think  it  is  set 
forth  there  in  that  document ;  the  cost  of  the  militia 
in  these  several  mimic  wars  amounted  to  consider- 
ably over  a  million  dollars,  which  is  found  close  to 
the  back  page  there. 

Q. — I  have  the  cost.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not 
during  the  strike  there  was  one  mine  or  more, — the 
Portland  was  it? 

A. — Yes,  the  Portland. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD         ^  67 

Q. — Which  employed  Union  men? 

A. — Yes,  the  Portland  mine. 

Q. — What  did  the  militia  do  to  that  mine? 

A. — Closed  it  down. 

Q._Why? 

A. — Because  they  hired  union  men.  I  might  say 
in  that  connection — 

Q. — I  will  just  get  that  right  here. 

A. — Another  feature,  Mr.  Vanderveer.  There 
was  a  meeting  held  at  Colorado  Springs  at  which 
James  Burns,  the  owner  of  the  Portland  mine,  refused 
to  enter  into  a  contract  for  a  reduction  of  wages. 
There  was  a  conspiracy  on  the  part  of  the  mine 
operators  of  Cripple  Creek  to  reduce  wages  and  Jim 
Burns  refused  to  become  a  party  to  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Chapter  29.  '^Mines  oper- 
ated on  Open  Shop  Principle  closed  by  military  au- 
thorities."   (Reading.) 

Q. — Was  there  any  insurrection  or  rebellion 
there? 

A. — None  whatever. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  any  humorous  incident  of 
a  similar  character  that  occurred  where  there  was  a 
declaration  on  the  other  side  that  there  was  no  state 
of  insurrection  or  rebellion? 

A. — I  don't  recall  what  you  mean. 

Q. — That  the  miners  were  in  peaceable  posses- 
sion? 

A. — Yes.    I  mentioned  that  here  yesterday. 

Q. — You  did  mention  it? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — From  the  witness  stand? 

A. — That  was  Telluride. 

Q. — I  don't  recall  it. 

A. — In  Telluride  the  Governor  sent  a  committee 
of  Lieutenant-Governor  Coates  and  Senator  Buck- 
ley, they  reported  back  that  the  mines  were  in  peace- 
able possession  of  the  miners. 

Q. — Who  was  that  Governor? 

A. — That  was  Governor  Orman. 

Q. — Was  there  any — 


68  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — He  refused  to  send  the  militia. 

Q. — Was  there  any  interference  by  the  militia? 

A.— By  what? 

Q. — Were  the  militia  sent  in? 

A. — Oh,  no,  he  refused  to  send  the  militia  and 
the  strike  was  soon  adjusted. 

MR.  VANDERVEER  (Continued  Reading)  : 

Q.— Had  anybody  been  killed? 

A. — I  did  not  just  catch  that. 

Q. — Had  anybody  been  killed  in  Teller  County? 

A. — No,  not  at  that  time.  What  was  the  date 
there  ? 

Q. — June  9,  1904.  I  am  reading  from  General 
Sherman  M.  Bell's  Proclamation  reciting:  (Reading.) 

A. — Oh,  that  was  all  in  Bell's  imagination.  There 
had  been  no  one  killed  at  that  time  but  there  were 
several  during  that  strike. 

Q. — Who  were  they? 

A. — They  were  non-union  men,  mostly ;  there  was 
the  Independent  explosion. 

MR.  VANDEVEER   (Reading  Continued)  : 

Q. — The  Independent  Explosion  is  dealt  with  in 
here,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  it  is  there. 

Q. — And  the  causes  of  it? 

^^ Yes  sir. 

MR.  VANDERVEER  (Continued  Reading)  : 

"Militia  hired  to  corporations  to  break  the 
strike."  I  don't  find  that  just  now;  I  will  locate  it 
later. 

At  the  bottom  of  this  poster  (Reading  inscriptions 
on  poster)  : 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Will  you  mark  there? 
(Photographs   and   documents  marked   Defend- 
ants' Exhibits  429  to  507  inclusive.) 

THE  COURT:  Ten  minutes  recess. 
(Whereupon  a  short  recess  was  taken.) 

THE  COURT:  Go  ahead,  gentlemen. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Mr.  Haywood,  you  were 
actively  connected  it  appears,  with  the  conduct  of 
the  strike  at  Lawrence? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  69 

A. — Yes,  sir. 
Q. — Also  at  Paterson? 

A. — Acted  in  the  capacity  of  Chairman  of  the 
Strike  Committee  a  good  deal  of  the  time. 
Q. — Also  at  Paterson? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  also  at  Lowell,  Massachusetts? 
A. — I  was  at  Lowell  during  the  strike  there. 
Q. — What  was  the   conduct  of  the   strikers   at 
Lawrence  with  reference  to  violence  and  destruction 
of  property? 

A. — The  strikers  at  Lawrence  committed  abso-^ 
lutely  no  violence.   There  was  no  destruction  of  prop- 
erty whatever  after  the   officials  of  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World  got  on  the  job  and  very  little 
previous  to  that. 

Q. — What  was  the  attitude  of  the  L  W.  W.  and 
their  officials  on  that  subject? 

A. — Well,  we  realized,  of  course,  that  if  they 
would  stand  together,  man  to  man,  woman  to  wo- 
man, child  to  child,  that  they  could  not  lose  the 
strike,  and  in  speaking  to  them  I  told  them  that  what 
they  wanted  to  do  was  to  keep  their  hands  in  their 
pockets;  when  they  had  their  hands  in  their  pockets 
the  capitalists  could  not  get  us  there, — keep  their 
hands  folded.  There  was  no  occasion  for  any  vio- 
lence or  any  destruction.  However,  there  was  much 
violence  on  the  part  of  the  mill  owners,  which  was 
committed  by  militiamen,  by  the  police  and  deputy 
sheriffs.  There  was  some  three  of  the  strikers  killed, 
one  of  them  Anna  Lopezzi,  who  was  killed  by  a  po- 
liceman, and  John  Rami,  a  Syrian  boy,  a  drummer,  I  » 
think,  in  the  Syrian  Fife  and  Drum  Corps  stabbed 
by  a  militiaman  with  a  bayonet. 

(4. — Now,  how  was  the  strike  at  Paterson  con- 
ducted? 

A. — Practically  in  the  same  manner,  only  there 

was  even  more  violence  on  the  part  of  the  police. 

There  were  no  militiamen  at  Paterson  but  there  were 

between  1800  and  1900  of  the  strikers  arrested. 

Q. — How  many  men  were  on  strike  at  Paterson? 


70  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Something  over  30;000  men  women  and  chil- 
dren. 

Q. — How  lon^  did  the  strike  last? 

A. — Six  months. 
^        Q. — And  do  you  remember  what  the  Industrial 
Relations  Commission  found  about  the  amount  of 
damage  done  by  the  strikers? 

A. — I  remember  they  reported  that  there  was  no 
damage  done  by  the  strikers. 

Q. — $25.  Do  you  remember  that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  was  that  an  I.  W.  W.  strike? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Anybody  else  have  anything  to  do  with  it? 

A. — Not  in  the  conduct  of  the  strike. 

Q. — Now,  how  about  the  strike  at  Lowell? 

A. — Well,  the  same  thin^  was  true. 

Q.— Was  that  an  I.  W.  W.  strike? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Anybody  else  have  anything  to  do  with  it? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Conducted  in  the  same  way? 

A. — In  the  same  way. 

Q. — I  want  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Haywood,  if  since  the 
organization  of  the  I.  W.  W.  it  has  ever  conducted  a 
single  strike  where  it  has  been  characterized  by  acts 
of  violence  on  the  part  of  the  strikers — on  the  part  of 
its  members? 

A. — There  never  has  been,  to  my  knowledge,  any 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World  to  advocate  violence  to  the  strikers,  or  for  that 
matter  on  the  part  of  the  strikers  to  commit  violence. 
You  see  we  are  organized  differently  than  the  craft 
union.  The  Industrial  Union  takes  in  every  man,  wo- 
man and  child  employed  in  the  industry  and  when 
the  industries  are  closed  down  there  is  small  chance 
or  occasion  for  violence.  There  are  no  scabs  going  to 
work,  and  there  we  had  a  mass  picket  line.  The 
strikers  were  ^all  out  at  Lawrence  in  the  morning; 
I  have  often  seen  15,000  pickets  marching  up  and 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  71 

down  in  front  of  the  mill,  protecting  what  they  be- 
lieved to  be  their  jobs. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  an  article  which  I  read 
about  the  Lowell  strike  relating  to  an  incident  in  con- 
nection with  the  strike  where  the  companies  had  a 
flag-raising  ceremony  and  sought  to  get  the  strikers 
to  go  back  to  work  on  the  play  of  patriotism? 

A. — I  remeber  that  incident;  I  was  not  there  at 
that  time. 

Q. — What  had  been  the  attitude  of  the  men  in  the 
strikes  towards  the  flag  and  towards  patriotic  oblig- 
ations? 

A. — Well,  at  Lawrence  the  strikers  always  car- 
ried the  flag  and  you  have  pictures  there — 
Q. — Yes,  I  know. 

A. — Of  the  leaders  with  four  or  five,  or  six  big 
flags  at  the  head  of  the  parades.  There  was  later  a 
demonstration  on  the  part  of  the  mill  owners  in 
which  they  paraded  the  strikers'  children,  where  they 
attempted  to  place  the  organization  in  bad  so  far  as 
the  flag  was  concerned. 

Q. — Will  you  give  me  the  numbers  of  these  ex- 
hibits; I  would  offer  them  collectively. 

MR  VANDERVEER:  I  offer  Exibits  429  to  507, 
consisting  of  a  number  of  photographs,  one  affidavit, 
one  club,  three  manuscript  statements,  all  bearing 
evidence  on  their  face  that  they  were  taken  from 
various  offices  of  the  L  W.  W.,  nearly  all  the  Chicago 
office,  in  the  raids  of  September  5th. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  If  the  Court  please,  an  offer  has 
ben  made  of  a  number  of  exhibits,  some  photographs 
and  some  statements  with  a  club.  Where  is  the 
club,  please?  Where  is  the  club,  please?  Including 
this  club. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  for  the  present  I  will 
exclude  that  club. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  From  which  was  detached  a 
wooden  shoe;  that  was  a  part  of  it  when  it  was 
brought  into  this  court  room  this  morning. 

THE  COURT:  Give  me  the  shoe  and  the  club. 
MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  it  was  attached  by 


72  TESTIMONY  OF 

somebody  else;  I  don't  know  for  what  reason,  it 
doesn't  make  any  difference;  I  v/ill  prove  that  by 
the  man  v/ho  had  it;  somebody,  I  don't  know,  for 
convenience  or  facetiously,  attached  the  wooden  shoe 
to  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  I  know  who  detached  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  There  is  no  question  about 
who  detached  it.  I  detached  it;  I  don't  care  anything 
about  the  wooden  shoe.  You  may  introduce  a  bushel 
of  these  if  you  want  to ;  I  don't  object. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  All  I  want  is  that  the  exhibit  be 
introduced  in  the  condition  it  was  when  counsel  got 
it,  that  is  all. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  All  I  want  is  the  condition 
in  which  it  was  originally  taken  from  us. 

THE  COURT:  Is  there  any  proof  before  me 
whether  the  gavel  at  the  time  it  was  brought  here 
was  barefooted  or  had  on  a  shoe. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  No,  I  don't  think  there  is 
any;  I  will  put  some  in,  if  this  issue  is  sufficient  to 
justify  it. 

(Defendants  Exhibit  429  to  507,  received  in  evi- 
dence.) 

Q. — I  show  you  Exhibit  Number  480,  is  that  one 
of  the  photographs  you  referred  to? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q._Whatisit? 

A. — This  is  a  picture  showing  a  mass  parade  with 
strikers  in  Lawrence,  Massachusetts,  and  the  strikers 
having  the  American  flag  at  the  front  of  the  parade. 
They  are  being  stopped  by  a  company  of  militia  who 
are  having  their  bayonets  jabbed  into  the  folds  of 
the  flag. 

Q. — Now,   Mr.   Haywood,  just  to   cover  this  in 
general,  you  have  examined  all  these  photographs  I 
have  here? 
A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  helped  me  select  them? 
A.— Yes. 

Q. — Are  they  all  honest  photographs? 
A. — I  think  so. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  73 

Q. — So  far  as  you  know,  anyway.  There  are  none 
of  them  faked  or  posed? 

A. — Oh,  these  particular  photographs  were  taken 
from  my  valise,  the  ones  that  I  got  while  I  was  in 
Lawrence. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Let  me  see  them. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Each  one  bears  the  stam.p ; 
I  would  like  to  show  them  to  the  jury. 

THE  COURT:  We  had  better  take  another  re- 
cess. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  am  ready  to  go  ahead. 

Q. — What  is  this  photograph,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — That  is  a  photograph  of  a  parade  at  the  time 
I  arrived  in  Lawrence. 

Q. — Is  that  in  the  condition  in  which  it  was  taken 
from  you  ? 

A. — No,  sir;  there  was  a  picture  of  myself  here 
and  one  of  myself  here  (Indicating). 

Q. — Which  have  been  taken  out? 

A. — Which  have  been  taken  out. 

Q. — Since  the  government  took  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Where  was  this  photograph  at?  Lawrence"; 

A. — At  Lawrence,  yes. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Just  a  moment;  what  was  that 
last  answer? 

(Record  read.) 

MR.  NEBEKER :  What  is  the  idea,  who  cut  it  out? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  haven't  the  remotest  idea 
who  did.  You  would  be  more  likely  to  know  that 
than  I. 

A. — I  don't  know;  it  was  there  when  it  was 
taken 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  479:  Merely  a  strike  in- 
cident in  the  strike  ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q.— 468? 

A. — This  is  a  picture  of  the  Ipswich  strike. 

Q. — Ipswich  strike.  What  are  the  goods  stacked 
up  there,  what  do  they  represent? 


74  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — They  are  the  small  belongings  that  the  strik- 
ers piled  out  on  the  street. 

MR.  VANDEVEER:  I  read  this  attached  mem- 
orandum. 

(Reading.) 

Number  478:  ''Latest  Lawrence,  Massachusetts 
strike  parade.  Police  stopping  parade,  September 
20th. 

Number  477 :  Lawrence  strike.  Children  appeas- 
ing their  hunger  at  public  food  station. 

476  I  assume  is  just  a  strike  incident,  the  arrest 
of  a  striker? 

A. — ihat  is  all. 
472 :     Striker's  family. 

471 :  Members  of  G-company  cleaning  their  rifles 
in  the  shipping  room  of  the  Lower  Pacific  Mills,  Law- 
rence ? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.— 469 :     ''Head  of  a  Typical  Parade." 

467:      "Meeting  of  child  strikers." 

Where  was  that? 

A. — This  was  in  the  Turn  Hall  at  Paterson. 

Q. — Is  that  your  photograph  in  the  center? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  the  lady  below  and  to  your  right? 

A, — Elizabeth  Gurley  Flynn. 

Q. — Elizabeth  Gurley  Flynn,  another  defendant. 

466:  "Represents  feeding  strike  kiddies."  Pater- 


son 


A. — Yes,  sir ;  yes,  that  is  Paterson. 

Q. — Elizabeth  Gurley  Flynn  and  Big  Bill  Hay- 
wood leading  strikers'  children  to  City  Hall,  Pater- 
son." 

What  is  the  purpose  of  this,  leading  them  to  the 
City  Hall? 

A. — Well,  the  Mayor  of  Paterson  said  that  chil- 
dren would  be  fed  by  the  city,  the  strikers'  children. 
We  took  a  contingent  of  the  kiddies  up  to  the  City 
Hall  and  no  arrangements  had  been  made  to  take  care 
of  them,  so  we  sent  them  to  strike  parents  in  New 
York  City. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  75 

Q. — You  seem  to  have  genuine  concern  for  the 
children,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — Well,  the  children  was  what  I  was  more  con- 
cerned about  than  anything  else. 

Q. — Is  it  camouflage  only  here  in  this  court? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — 463,  (Reading  inscription.) 

459? 

A. — This  is  a  picture  of  the  woolen  mills  at  Law- 
rence, Massachusetts,  and  it  shows  the  streams  of 
water,  some  of  which  were  hot,  turned  on  the  strik- 
ers, as  they  were  attempting  to  cross  the  bridge. 

Q. — Streams  of  hot  water  you  say? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Turned  on  the  strikers? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — 458 :  ''Arrival  of  President  Haywood  at  the 
station." 

Where? 

A. — This  was  at  Lawrence,  Massachusetts. 

Q. — Lawrence? 

A. — That  is  a  committee ;  you  will  see  Giovannitti 
right  behind  me  there. 

Q. — Yes,  Mr.  Giovannitti's  picture  and  Mr.  Hay- 
wood's picture  (Handing  to  jury). 

Number  457  represents  what? 

A. — This  was  a  meeting  of  the  strikers  on  the 
Common. 

Q. — At  Lawrence? 

A.— At  Lawrence,  when  they  were  taking  a  vote 
on  calling  off  the  strike. 

Q. — Was  a  vote  taken  at  that  meeting? 

A. — Yes,  they  voted  in  groups  by  nationalities 
when  the  demands  had  been  granted. 

Q. — You  again  are  speaking  where  the  arrow  is? 

A. — That  is  up  in  the  stand. 

Q.— Number  452:  Paterson  strikers'  pageant  at 
Madison  Square  Garden,  pictures  in  front  of  fac- 
tory. That  is  a  reproduction,  is  it  not,  of  incidents 
in  the  Paterson  strike? 

A. — Well,  this  is  a  pageant  that  we  put  on  in 


76  TESTIMONY  OF 

Madison  Square  Garden  in  New  York  City. 

Q. — For  what  purpose? 

A. — First  to  raise  funds. 

Q. — For  whom? 

A. — For  the  strikers  at  Paterson,  and  this  page- 
ant was  shown  by  the  strikers  themselves.  Over  a 
thousand  strikers  from  Paterson  went  to  New  York 
and  put  on  this  wonderful  Pageant. 

Q. — How  many  nights  was  that  produced? 

A.— One. 

Q.— Only  one? 

A. — Only  one. 

Q. — How  many  people  attended? 

A. — The  Madison  Square  Garden  was  packed  to 
capacity;  and  it  seats  12,000. 

Q. — Did  you  take  part  in  the  pageant? 

A. — I  spoke. 

Q. — You  took  part  in  the  pageant? 

A. — Well,  I  took  part  in  the  pageant;  the  idea 
was  to  present  the  scenes  of  the  strike  at  Paterson ;  I 
might  describe  this  to  you  briefly. 

Q. — Go  ahead. 

A. — The  first  scene  shows  the  mills  alive,  the 
lights  in  all  of  them;  you  will  see  this  scenery  shows 
— I  have  forgotten  just  what  that  mill  is  in  Paterson 
now. 

Q. — Was  it  the  same  mill  shown  in  one  of  these 
other  photographs? 

A. — Yes,  I  will  remember  it  in  just  a  moment. 
This  mill  is  largely  owned  by  Japanese  stockholders. 
This  scene  was  produced  at  a  cost  of  $700.  We  paid 
$1000  rent  for  that  hall,  and  $600  for  the  erection 
of  the  stage. 

The  first  scene  showed  the  mills  alive,  lights  shin- 
ing from  all  the  windows  and  the  strikers  coming 
down  the  center  aisle  which  was  converted  into  a 
street  and  they  all  went  into  the  mills. 

After  a  lapse  of  what  was  intended  for  say  three 
hours,  a  call  came  from  the  mills,  ''Strike"  and  all  of 
the  workers  began  rushing  out  of  the  mills  and  down 
through  this  center  aisle. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  77 

The  next  scene  showed  the  mills  dead  and  the 
strikers  alive.  This  is  the  picture  here  showing  the 
strikers  moving  around  in  front  of  the  mills. 

The  next  scene  showed  an  onslaught  by  the  police 
where  one  of  the  strikers  was  killed,  and  the  next  the 
funeral  cortege  of  the  striker.  The  parade,  or  pro- 
cession, funeral  procession  again  marching  dov/n  the 
center  aisle  and  speeches  being  delivered  by  Tresca, 
Miss  Flynn  and  myself ;  and  the  next  showing  a  holi- 
day scene  on  Slate  Mountain,  where  all  of  the  strik- 
ers were  gathered  and  where  arrangements  w^ere 
made  for  the  turning  of  the  children  over  from  the 
strikers  themselves  to  their  strike  parents,  as  we 
called  them,  in  New  York  City,  and  the  final  scene 
was  myself  addressing  all  of  the  strikers,  whose 
backs  were  then  turned  to  the  audience,  representa- 
tive of  a  strike  meeting  in  Turn  Hall  in  Paterson,  at 
which  I  described  this  wonderful  pageant  that  had 
just  then  taken  place  in  the  Madison  Square  Garden 
in  New  York. 

You  asked  me  how  many  people  attended  this. 
The  queue  lines  after  the  Garden  was  packed,  w^as  in 
one  instance  28  blocks  long,  and  no  telling  how  big 
a  crowd  there  was  at  all. 

Q. — Here  is  475,  what  is  left  of  it;  it  was  a  big 
circular  gotten  out  for  strike  funds  at  Providence? 

A. — No,  sir;  not  at  Providence;  this  was  at  Law- 
rence. 

Q. — At  Lawrence,  I  mean. 

A. — And  this  was  perhaps  that  wide,  (Indicat- 
ing), with  a  heading  on  top  and  notice  on  the  bottom. 

Q. — And  the  photographs  are  photographs  of  in- 
cidents? 

A. — Actual  incidents. 

Q._441iswhat? 

A. — This  is  a  picture  of  the  Joe  Hill  funeral  here 
in  Chicago. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Well,  that  is  out  of  place. 
446 :  Rear  view  of  strikers'  families. 

A.— Little  Falls. 

Q. — Little  Falls,  Massachusetts? 


78  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — No,  New  York. 

Q. — New  York  is  that?  My  geography  is  worse 
than  Porter's. 

432:  Is  that  a  strike  incident? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — At  what  strike  ? 

A. — At  Lawrence. 

Q. — At  Lawrence.  434:  Crowd  at  the  side  en- 
trance of  the  Washington  Mill's  office,  trying  to  get 
in  and  get  their  pay. 

453  seems  to  be  a  dinner  of  some  kiddies. 

A. — This  is  a  picture  of  a  banquet  of  I.  W.  W. 
kiddies  at  New  Bedford,  Massachusetts. 

Q. — In  connection  with  any  strike  there? 

A. — No,  that  is  just  when  there  was  not  any 
strike. 

Q. — When  there  was  not  any  strike.  Who  gave 
them  the  dinner? 

A. — They  provided  it  themselves. 

Q. — Provided  it  themselves.  You  never  hear  of 
anybody  giving  the  I.  W.  W.  kiddies  any  dinner? 

A. — You  never  hear  of  anybody  giving  the  I.  W. 
W.  kiddies  any  dinner. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  These  are  just  some  log- 
ging pictures.  I  don't  know  whether  they  will  inter- 
est you  specially.    (Handing  to  jury.) 

Q. — Is  this  430  a  photograph  issued  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Spokane  free  speech  fight? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Miss  Flynn's  picture  in  the  insert  here? 

A. — In  the  corner  there  (Indicating). 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  will  read  it  to  you  to  save 
you  the  trouble  of  doing  it  twelve  times.  (Reading 
Defendants'  Exhibit  430  and  handing  to  jury.) 

Q. — Number  455  is  what? 

A. — :This  is  a  picture  of  the  shirt-waist  makers 
at  the  Triangle  fire  which  ^occurred  in  New  York 
City. 

Mr.  Vanderveer,  in  that  same  connection,  with 
this  picture,  the  loss  of  many  lives  at  that  time  was 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  79 

due  to  the  fact  that  the  doors  to  the  factory  opened 
inward. 

Q. — Instead  of  outward  as  the  state  law  re- 
quired? 

A. — And  they  were  locked  to  keep  the  girls,  as 
they  claimed  frdm  carrying  out  thread  and  pieces 
of  cloth, — a  spool  of  thread, — before  they  were 
searched. 

Q. — I  show  you  four  photographs — rather,  six 
photographs  marked  487,  488,  489,  490,  491  and  492, 
respectively.   What  do  those  photographs  show? 

A. — These  are  photographs  of  the  bodies  of  the 
men  who  were  killed  on  the  ''Verona." 

Q.— At  Everett? 

A. — At  Everett. 

Q. — On  Bloody  Sunday,  November  5,  1916? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  right. 

Q. — The  names  are  there.  Now,  why  have  you 
treasured  these  gruesome  things,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — While  they  are  gruesome,  I  do  not — 

Q. — Well,  these  are  men  who  have  given  their 
lives  for  the  cause  of  Industrial  Unionism. 

MR,  VANDERVEER:  (Reading  inscriptions  on 
photographs.) 

A. — I  used  these  cuts,  Mr.  Vanderveer,  in  a  book 
they  have  just  published,  the  Everett  Massacre,  the 
Class  Struggle  in  the  Lumber  Industry. 

Q. — How  many  men  were  killed  there  altogether, 
of  our  boys? 

A. — Five,  I  think. 

Q. — Five.  Now,  I  want  to  show  you  Defendants' 
Exhibit  435,  436  and  437,  which  are  merely  photo- 
graphs of  the  office,  general  headquarters  and  pub- 
lishing bureau? 

A. — And  print  shop. 

Q. — 474:  ''Late  at  night;  family  making  garters; 
New  York." 

445 :  "The  biggest  union  raid  since  Cripple  Creek, 
262  I.  W.  W.  miners  shown  in  the  County  Jail  at 
Scranton,  Pennsylvania." 

Is  that  one  of  the  raids  by  one  of  the  men  who 


80  TESTIMONY  OF 

was  on  the  stand  here  for  the  government? 

A. — Yes.  You  remember,  what  do  they  call  them, 
— ^the  state  constabulary;  we  usually  refer  to  them  as 
the  Pennsylvania  Cossacks,  who  testified  here  and 
Sheriff  Buss  also. 

Q. — What  is  the  building,  do  you  know? 

A. — That  is  the  County  Court  House  at  Scranton. 

Q._439,  443,  444,  447,  438  and  448,  see  if  they 
are  all  photographs  of  various  incidents  connected 
with  Joe  Hill's  funeral? 

A. — These  are  all  photographs  showing  different 
views  of  Joe  Hill's  funeral,  save  one. 

Q. — Well,  take  that  one  out. 

A. — Joe  Hill  was  cremated  at  Graceland  Cem- 
etery at  his  request,  as  read  in  his  last  will,  and  this 
one  picture  is  showing  a  small  group  of  I.  W.  W.'s 
distributing  his  ashes  on  the  lake  front. 

Q.— 439  you  refer  to? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  44  to  442  inclusive  are  other  photo- 
graphs of  portions  of  his  funeral  parade? 

Exhibit  504,  photograph  of  Frank  H.  Little. 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.^Now  deceased,  and  a  letter  attached — & 
certificate  attached  relating  to  his  injuries? 

A. — Those  are  doctors'  certificates.  He  was  bad- 
ly beaten  up. 

Q. — Another  photograph  of  Frank  H.  Little,  De- 
fendants' Exhibit  495. 

THE  COURT:  I  don't  want  to  interfere  with  your 
proceedings  here,  but  just  how  does  this  help  it  along 
in  this  case? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Nothing  at  all  that  can 
show  a  strike  more  graphically  or  more  naturally 
than  pictures. 

THE  COURT:  Is  this  a  strike  picture  of  Little? 

THE  WITNESS :  Yes,  sir ;  a  picture  taken  where 
Little  went  to  a  strike.  That  is  the  treatment  that  he 
received. 

THE  COURT:  I  did  not  get  the  point. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:   Q.— What  is  the  photo- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  81 

graph?  You  might  tell  the  jury  more  about  it. 

A. — It  might  be  well  to  read  this. 

Q. — Well,  I  will  do  that,  but  you  tell  the  incident 
connected. 

A. — I  don't  recall  this  particular  incident. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Well,  then  I  will  read  this. 

(Reads  exhibit  referred  to  to  the  jury.) 

Q. — This  is  another  doctor's  certificate  relating 
to  the  wounds,  and  then  a  photograph  of  Little.  One 
as  God  made  him  and  the  other  as  somebody  else 
made  him.  Exhibit  494. 

A. — This  is  a   picture   of  the   body   of  Frank 
Little. 

Q. — What  are  the  scars  on  the  knees  and  shoul- 
ders supposed  to  indicate? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  is  objected  to  as  a  con- 
clusion. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q. — What  is  your  informa- 
tion and  when  did  you  receive  that? 

A. — I  receiyed  this  after  Frank  Little  was  hung 
in  Butte,  Montana. 

Q. — Before  the  raid  obviously?  It  was  taken  in 
the  raid? 

A. — Oh,  certainly. 

Q. — What  is  the  information  about  the  scars  on 
his  knees, — the  wounds,  rather  on  his  shoulder? 

A. — Well,  it  is  said  that  they  were  caused  by  him 
being  dragged  back  of  an  automobile. 

Q. — Behind  an  automobile.  This  is  an  affidavit 
(Handing  witness  document)  ? 

A. — This  is  an  affidavit  of  Frank,  of  the  treat- 
ment that  he  received  in  Michigan. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Let  me  see  that,  will  you,  Mr. 
Vanderveer? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes.  I  will  withdraw  Ex- 
hibits 493  and  496. 

I  want  to  read  this  Exhibit  433. 

(Reads  Exhibit  433  to  the  jury.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  I 
ghow  you  two — who  is  Lieutenant  Linderfeldt? 

A. — He  was  Lieutenant  of  the  militia  in  Colorado 


82  TESTIMONY  OF 

at  the  time  of  the  coal  miners'  strike  in  1914. 
/         Q. — How  did  he  get  in  the  militia? 

A. — Recruiting  as  they  do  on  many  occasions, 
I  from  roughs  and  toughs. 

Q. — And  is  he  a  man  who  was  referred  to  in  the 
1  Industrial  Relations  Commission  report  as  a  man  who 
committed  murders  there? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Lieutenant  Linderfeldt,  Colorado,  Exhibit 
462? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

(Mr.  Vanderveer  reads  same  to  the  jury.) 

Q. — Now,  Exhibit  461  is  just  what  it  purports  to 
be:  "Mine  guard  about  to  shoot  from  cover  of 
debris."  Where  was  that? 

A. — Colorado. 

Q. — And  this  photograph  of  men  on  top  of  box 
cars? 

A. — Colorado. 

Q.— Colorado? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — In  what  strikes  did  these  incidents  occur? 

A. — The  coal  miners'  strike. 

Q.— Ludlow? 

A. — Yes,  this  particular  incident  was  at  Ludlow. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  ''Coal  mine  strike,  Denver 
Times.  Soldiers  manipulating  machine  guns."  Where 
is  this? 

A. — This  is  at  Ludlow. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  This  is  Defendants'  Exhibit 
454.    (Reads  same  to  the  jury.) 

Q,_Exhibit  473? 

A. — That  is  a  picture  from  Globe. 

Q. — A  picture  from  Globe.  Showing  what — 
Globe,  Arizona,  the  gunmen  on  horseback  in  the 
foreground. 

Q. — Gunmen  on  horseback,  and  what  building? 

A. — That  is  one  of  the  government  buildings. 

Q. — Exhibit  464  is  apparently  a  picture  of  the 
meeting? 

A. — That  is  the  picture  of  the  meeting  I  told  you 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  83 

about  yesterday. 

Q. — At  the  London  Tower? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Which  you  addressed? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Exhibit  470:  ''Pennsylvania  Cossacks  patrol- 
ling the  streets  of  McKees  Rocks."  (Hands  same  to 
the  jury.) 

You  remember  an  article  that  some  reference  has 
been  made  to  a  strike  occurring  in  the  Calumet  and 
Hecla  mining  district  of  Michigan  in  19 — 

A. — I  do,  I  remember  that  there  was  some  ref- 
erence to  it. 

Q.— 1915,  was  that? 

A. — That  was  1913,  if  I  remember  rightly. 

Q._What  is  Exhibit  451? 

A. — This  is  evidently  a  camp  of  militiamen.  I  do 
not  know. 

Q. — You  do  not  know  it  otherwise? 

A.— No. 

Q._''C.  and  H.  No.  5  shaft.''  Is  that  Calumet  and 
Hecla? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — ''Under  guard,  Hancock  strike."  Where  is 
Hancock? 

A. — In  Michigan. 

Q. — Do  you  recall  the  incident  of  a  fire  on  Christ- 
mas Eve  during  the  Calumet-Hecla  strike  ? 

A. — I  have  read  of  it  and  been  told  of  it. 

Q. — Just  in  brief  tell  us  what  it  was. 

A. — There  was  a  Christmas  celebration  and  a 
Christmas  tree  arranged  for  children  and  while  the 
celebration  was  in  progress  and  the  presents  about 
to  be  distributed,  some  one  in  the  hall  shouted  "fire." 
The  children  all  made  a  rush  to  the  door,  resulting  in 
a  jam,  and  some  ninety  of  them,  I  think,  were  tram- 
pled and  smothered  to  death. 

Q._Who  was  it  that  shouted  "fire"  ? 

A. — It  is  said  that  it  was  one  of  the  thugs  of  the 
mining  company. 

Q. — Now,  I  want  to  show  you  four  photographs 


84  TESTIMONY  OF 

numbered  respectively  497,  498,  499  and  501.  What 
do  those  show?    Also  500. 

A. — Well,  this  one  is  not  of  Calumet — yes,  it  is 
too.  These  pictures  show  the  coffins  and  funeral 
procession  and  the  long  trench  where  the  bodies  were 
buried. 

Q.— And  502? 

MR.  NEBEKER:    Is    this    connected    with    this 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Of  any  I.  W.  W.  activities? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  The  Calumet-Hecla  strike 
in  1913. 

The  pictures  entitled  'Tuneral  of  the  victims  of 
the  Calumet  catastrophe  in  which  74  lost  their  lives." 
(Hands  same  to  the  jury.)  Three  pictures  of  the 
graves. 

A. — This  is  a  picture  of  the  bodies  of  two  adults 
and  a  baby;  a  man  and  woman  and  baby. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Some  more  of  the  victims 
of  that  same.  Exhibit  431. 

A. — This  is  a  photograph  of  Joseph  Smith,  one 
of  the  defendants  here,  and  Carlo  Tresca,  also  one  of 
the  defendants. 

Q. — One  of  the  defendants? 

A. — Yes,  and  the  family  of  Aller,  John  Aller. 

Q.— John  Aller? 

A. — The  man  who  was  murdered  on  the  Mesaba 
Range  in  Minnesota.  They  were  taking  up  a  col- 
lection and  were  giving  it  to  his  wife. 

(Mr.  Vand^rveer  hands  exhibit  referred  to  to  the 
jury.) 

Q. — Now,  do  you  believe  there  is  a  class  war,  Mr. 
Haywood? 

A- — Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Objected  to  as  a  repetition,  if 
the  Court  please.  Counsel  says  now  after  examining 
this  defendant  on  the  point  at  great  length:  *'Do 
you  think  now  that  there  is  a  class  war?" 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  did  not  say  "do  you  think 
now."  I  said:  ''Do  you  believe  there  is  a  class  war." 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  85 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Now,  of  course,  that  question  is 
a  repetition,  and  a  re-repetition. 

THE  COURT:  Overruled. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  I  would  like  to  make  the  sugges- 
tion that  I  would  be  very  glad  to  have  the  Court  read 
this  exhibit. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Read  what? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  exhibit  number — your  ex- 
hibit that  you  put  in  evidence  here  yesterday.  I 
would  like  particularly  to  call  the  Court's  attention 
to  pages  76,  78,  79,  118,  153,  174,  189,  175,  192,  252, 
253  and  272. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Counsel  knows  that  he  may 
read  as  much  of  that  book,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
as  he  wants  to,  either  in  private,  or  to  the  Court,  or 
to  the  jury. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  I  know  at  the  same  time,  for  the 
Court's  information,  particularly,  I  make  the  sugges- 
tion, of  course  that  I  would  like  to  have  the  jury  read 
the  same  exhibit.  I  will  not  take  the  time  to  read  it 
here. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  will  be  very  glad  to  have 
the  jury  read  it  all,  if  you  want  to,  I  mean. 

THE  COURT:  Go  ahead  with  something  else  that 
somebody  does  want  in. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  I 
want  to  show  you  four  envelopes,  which  I  just  happen 
to  have  in  my  possession  now.  Do  you  know  what 
those  are? 

A. — Well,  one  of  them  here  speaks  for  itself.  It 
has  the  return  stamp  on  of  the  third  floor,  1001  West 
Madison  street. 

Q. — How  many  of  those  things  have  come  to  your 
attention  during  the  last — well,  during  the  pendency 
of  this  case  and  the  defense  of  this  case? 

A. — I  have  at  this  time  in  the  safe  over  at  the 
office,  at  least  a  dozen,  and  also  half  as  many  or  more 
register  return  cards  of  letters  that  were  mailed  as 
early  as  last  February. 

Q. — And  never  delivered? 

A. — Never  delivered.    The  post  mark  is   "Chi- 


86  TESTIMONY  OF 

cago''  on  the  21st,  27th,  28th  or  29th  of  July. 

Q. — Do  you  recall  a  bunch  of  pamphlets  which 
were  once  gotten  out  by  the  defense  committee  and 
sent  by  express — the  American  Express  Company 
here  in  little  folders,  about  six  or  seven  pamphlets, 
perhaps? 

A. — Sent  out  in  packages? 

Q.— Yes. 

A.— To  Butte? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — How  many  of  those  were  there? 

A. — I  think  there  were  375  pounds  as  I  remember 
it. 

Q.— 375  pounds? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Well,  what  happened  to  those? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Let  me  call  the  Court's  attention 
to  the  fact  that  this  is  not  the  activities  of  this  de- 
fendant with  respect  to  some  mail  or  express  pack- 
ages that  evidently  were  sent  out  since  the  indictment 
in  this  case. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes,  sir;  we  want  to 
show — 

THE  COURT:  Objection  overruled.    Go  ahead. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q. — You  were  informed 
why  these  were  not  delivered? 

A. — They  were  not  delivered  on  account — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Objected  to  if  the  Court  please. 
I  object  as  hearsay  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  evi- 
dence is  competent.  It  cannot  be  anything  that  could 
have  actuated  this  defendant  during  the  period  of  the 
indictment  at  least.  If  the  purpose  is  to  ascertain 
what  was  done  with  respect  to  interference  with  mail 
or  express  packages,  then  the  Court  wants  competent 
evidence.  It  makes  no  difference  what  his  informa- 
tion was  unless  the  information  is  competent. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  We  will  bring  the  manager 
of  the  American  Express  Company  here  then,  to  show 
why  and  by  whom — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Do  you  know  why  the 
literature  was  stopped? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  87 

A. — I  saw  a  receipt  on  which  a  statement  was 
written — 

Q. — You  say  a  receipt  on  which  a  statement  was 
written  ? 

A. — Yes,  a  receipt  that  I  signed. 

Q. — By  whom — pardon  me. 

A. — A  receipt  that  I  signed  when  the  packages 
were  returned.  It  said:.  ''These  packages  were  not 
delivered  on  account  of  orders  issued  by  the  govern- 
ment." 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Where  is  that  receipt.  I  would 
just  like  to  have  the  exact  wording  of  it? 

A. — It  is  in  possession  of  the  American  Express 
Company.  I  signed  this  receipt  when  the  packages 
were  returned. 

Q. — You  did  not  keep  a  duplicate? 

A. — No,  I  did  not.  It  was  signed — this  notation 
was  by  the  company,  when  the  messenger  delivered 
it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Have  you  got  copies  of  the  in- 
serts  ? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  You  bet,  and  I  am  going  to 
bring  them. 

Q. — You  still  can  get  copies  of  the  literature  that 
was  held  up? 

A. — Why,  I  think  there  will  be  no  trouble  to  find 
what  kind  of  literature  it  was,  from  the  copies. 

Q. — I  wish  you  would  bring  one  of  those  Monday 
morning — at  least  one  set. 

I  wish  you  would  tell  the  jury  now  in  a  general 
way,  without  going  too  much  into  detail,  what  plan 
was  adopted  to  finance  the  defense  of  this  case,  and 
what,  if  any  interruption  or  interference  the  gov- 
ernment offered? 

A. — Well,  early  last  September,  when  the  raids 
were  made  all  over  the  country  on  the  I.  W.  W.  head- 
quarters, the  Industrial  Union  offices  and  the  re- 
cruiting unions,  several  arrests  were  made  and  it  was 
determined •  to  organize  a  defense  committee.  Her- 
bert Mahler,  and  C.  E.  Payne,  were  brought  on  from 
Seattle.    Mahler  to  act  as  secretary-treasurer  and 


88  TESTIMONY  OF  ■    ll 

Payne  as  publicity  man  of  the  Defense  Committee.  |! 
The  purpose  being  to  arouse  as  much  sentiment  and  'i 
as  much  publicity  as  possible,  and  to  raise  funds  for   j 
the  men  who  were  arrested,  and  who  it  seemed  at 
that  time  were  likely  to  be  arrested.   On  the  28th  of 
September,  as  you  gentlemen  now  well  know,  many 
arrests  were  made,  not  only  of  these  166  defendants   | 
who  were  charged  in  the  indictment  here,  but  I  think  i 
it  would  be  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  a  thousand 
other  men  in  different  towns  throughout  the  country 
were  thrown  in  jail.   They  were  either  charged  with 
some  crime  or  without  any  warrant  at  all — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  object,  if  the  Court  please,  as 
being  incompetent  and  hearasy,  and  a  conclusion.  I 
make  the  suggestion  that  it  no  longer  is  a  question 
of  what  information  has  come  to  this  man  because  i 
that  is  not  material  or  relevant  any  longer,  and  if  it  i 
is  for  the  Court — the  purpose  of  informing  the  Court 
as  to  some  matter  since  the  time  the  indictment  was 
returned,  then  it  must  be  by  competent  evidence. 

THE  COURT:  Overruled. 

A. — After  the  arrest  a  defense  committee  was 
organized.  Now,  you  understand  that  there  is  no 
German  gold  received  by  this  organization,  and  no 
means  of  providing  the  membership  of  the  organiza- 
tion a  defense, — a  proper  defense,  to  which  every 
man  is  entitled,  except  what  comes  in  the  way  of  do- 
nations; voluntary  assessments  and  what  little  re- 
mainder there  may  be  left  from  the  treasury.  This 
committee  organized  as  they  were  here  in  the  city 
of  Chicago,  proceeded  to  get  out  bulletins,  notices  of 
different  kinds  to  the  Socialist  locals,  to  the  Unions 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  to  the  Radical 
Press  of  the  country,  and  to,  of  course,  the  entire 
membership  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the. World. 
In  doing  this  they  used  the  print  shop,  the  mimeo- 
praph  machines  that  we  have  at  headquarters  and 
circulated  many  bulletins  and  documents  setting 
forth  as  clearly  as  they  could  the  facts  in  this  case. 
Now,  the  report  has  come  to  us  that  there  were  300 
sacks  of  mail  held  here  in  Chicago.    The  mail  has 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  89 

also  been  interfered  with  at  its  point  of  destination, 
and  the  general  result  has  been  that  the  funds  of  the 
organization  have  been  reduced  almost  to  a  mini- 
mum, so  at  the  present  time  there  is  scarcely  suffi- 
cient funds  in  the  organization  to  see  this  trial 
through.  This  has  been  accomplished  before  the  law 
that  authorized  the  Post  Master  General  to  inspect 
any  mail  that  he  saw  fit.  It  would  occur  to  me  that 
an  interference — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Is  this  answering  a  question?  I 
object  to  it  as  an  argument  and  not  in  answer  to  any 
question. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q. — In  how  many  places 
were  defense  committees  established,  Mr.  Haywood, 
as  a  medium  for  the  distribution  of  defense  literature 
and  for  the  collection  of  defense  funds? 

A. — Well,  in  almost  every  town  or  city  where  we 
had  a  recruiting  union  or  industrial  union,  beginning 
at  Boston,  New  York,  Brooklyn,  Pittsburgh,  Cleve- 
land, Duluth,  Detroit,  and,  of  course,  one  here  in 
Chicago,  Toledo,  Minneapolis,  Sioux  City  Omaha, 
— I  think  a  defense  committee  in  Denver.  One  in  Los 
Angeles,  San  Francisco,  Portland,  Seattle,  but  in  all 
of  these  places — 

Q. — Now,  where  is  your  membership  largest,  and 
where  did  you  ordinarily  expect  to  get  your  greatest 
contributions? 

A. — In  the  Northwest. 

Q. — In  how  many  places  in  the  Northwest  or  the 
West  have  the  defense  committees  been  allowed  to 
function? 

A. — Well,  the  defense  offices  and  the  offices  of 
the  organization  have  been  closed  up,  in,  I  think  it 
is  almost  safe  to  say,  every  town  of  the  Northwest. 
Spokane,  and  Seattle,— the  defense  committees  have 
been  arrested  and  thrown  into  prison;  held  for  in- 
definite terms.  In  the  city  of  Seattle  there  has  while 
this  defense  has  been  going  on,  over,  I  should  say, 
500  members  been  arrested;  the  secretaries  of  the 
defense  committees  and  the  moneys  of  the  defense 
committees  tied  up. 


90  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— To  what  extent,  or  how  much  in  Seattle? 

A.— There  is  $6,000  that  James  O'Bryan  had 
alone. 

Q. — Have  you  been  able  to  get  that  money? 

A. — Not  that  money. 

Q. — Now,  how  about  Oakland,  San  Francisco 
and  Sacramento? 

A. — Well,  the  same  conditions  exist  there.  Let 
me  say  Mr,  Vanderveer,  that  in  Seattle  there  was  a 
picnic  just  the  other  day,  and  when  the  boat  returned 
to  Seattle  every  man  on  the  boat  was  met  at  the 
wharf  by  officials,  and  their  cards  examined.  Every 
man  who  had  a  day's  wage  stamp,  which  had  been 
issued  in  sums  of  3,  4,  5  and  6  dollars,  and  distributed 
for  sale  throughout  the  organization — ^these  are  vol- 
untary— 70  men  who  had  these  day's  wage  stamps 
in  their  books  were  arrested  and  are  now  in  jail. 

Q. — Do  you  know  Hinton  G.  Clabaugh? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Do  you  know  his  connection  with  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice  here? 

A. — Superintendent  of  this  district. 

Q. — Were  these  photographs,  letters  and  corres- 
pondence from  your  office  taken  in  a  search  warrant 
proceeding? 

A.— Yes,  sir. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  It  is  admitted  in  the  record 
already  that  they  were  taken  on  this  affidavit  which 
I  now  wish  to  read  to  the  jury. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Objected  to  as  immaterial  and 
irrelevant. 

THE  COURT:  What  is  the  pertinency  of  this. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  To  show  your  Honor  that 
these  photographs,  which,  among  other  things  we 
have  just  introduced,  were  taken  on  the  allegation  of 
Hinton  G.  Clabaugh,  Special  Agent  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice,  wherein  he  swore  on  his  oath  that 
they  had  been  used  to  commit  a  felony;  to  show  how 
the  Department  of  Justice  has  conducted  this  case. 

THE  COURT:  Just  what  light  will  that  give 
these  twelve  men  on  the  charge  of  this  case? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  91 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  It  justifies  a  question  as  to 
the  correctness  of  President  Wilson's  statement  that 
there  are  powers  behind  the  government — 

THE  COURT:  Oh,  objection  sustained,  if  that  is 
the  theory.   Objection  sustained. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  We  would  like  to  show  the 
method  of  the  prosecution,  of  course.  They  would 
not  hesitate  to  show  ours  if  there  was  any  to  show. 

THE  COURT:  Sir? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  say  we  want  to  show  the 
methods  of  the  prosecution.  They  would  be  per- 
mitted to  show  ours  if  there  were  anything  to  show. 
I  think  it  is  quite  as  material — 

MR.  NEBEKER :  We  have  not  attempted  to  show 
anything  on  the  part  of  this  defense. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  But  counsel  knows  that  he 
has  a  right — 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Since  the  finding  of  this  indict- 
ment. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Counsel  knows  he  has  the 
right  to  show  anything  in  the  world  in  connection 
with  the  defense  of  this  case  which  can  have  any 
bearing. 

THE  COURT:  Now,  here  is  an  affidavit  made  by 
Clabaugh. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes. 

THE  COURT:  That  he  has  received — I  assume  it 
is  like  these  others — ^that  he  has  received  and  does 
believe  that  at  certain  places  there  are  this,  that  and 
the  other  thing  used  by  the  various  defendants  in  the 
commission  of  a  felony.  On  that  a  judicial  officer 
issued  a  warrant.  With  that  warrant  the  United 
States  Marshal  went  to  the  premises  and  got  among 
other  things,  these  photographs.  Is  that  the  situa- 
tion? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  That  is  the  situation. 

THE  COURT:  Well,  read  the  affidavit. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Weil,  let  me  just  say,  your 
Honor,  before  your  Honor  passes  on  that,  that  it  is 
contended,  and  contended  in  all  seriousness  in  this 
case,  that  these  photographs  were  used  in  the  com- 


92  TESTIMONY  OF 

mission  of  these  felonies.  They  brin^  in  here  photo- 
graphs, most  gruesome,  sickening  things,  that  thej^ 
keep  stored  up  for  the  simple  and  sole  purpose  of 
inflaming  the  mJnds  of  their  members  and  enabling 
them  to  increase,  if  you  please,  this  class  hatred  they 
talk  about  so  much;  something  that  will  appeal  to 
the  morbid  mind  of  discontented  people.  Something 
that  will  appeal  to  the  criminal  instincts  of  their 
membership.  They  are  the  most  effective  means  that 
this  organization  has,  I  submit,  to  create  that  state 
of  mind  in  the  membership  that  Haywood  and  the 
other  leaders  of  this  organization  play  upon  in  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  felonies  charged  in  the  indict- 
ment. If  counsel  can  get  any  comfort  out  of  reading 
the  affidavit  that  charges  that,  I  will  say  he  is  per- 
fectly entitled  and  welcome  to  do  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  If  the  Court  please,  the 
story  of  the  Industrial  System — they  have  been  kept 
as  the  best  evidence  in  the  world  of  an  industrial  sys- 
tem which  we  are  attacking  and  if  counsel  can  get 
any  satisfaction  out  of  calling  them  gruesome, — you 
must  remember  that  somebody  did  things  that  these 
photographs  record. 

THE  COURT :  Read  the  affidavit. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  am  only  going  to  read  a 
little  of  it.  It  is  the  Chicago  affidavit — (Reads  affida- 
vit referred  to.) 

Q. — ^'Patriotism  and  the  Worker,"  was  that  ever 
published  by  the  I.  W.  W.? 

A. — Never  circulated  by  them. 

THE  COURT:  How  manv  pages  is  there  of  that 
stuff? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Oh,  I  am  only  going  to  read 
a  little  of  it.  (Continuing  reading  document  referred 
to.) 

THE  WITNESS:  You  asked  me  in  regard  to 
"Patriotism  and  the  Worker."  I  am  not  certain  but 
what  that  was  published  at  one  time  at  Cleveland. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  want  to  offer  in  evidence 
a  sample  of  this  envelope.    Defendants'  Exhibit  508. 

(Whereupon,  envelope  referred  to  was  received 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  93 

in  evidence  and  was  thereupon  marked  "Defendants' 
Exhibit  508.) 

Q. — Were  these  seals  placed  on  after  mailing? 

A. — Well,  sir.  Well — I  don't  know  about  that. 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  mean  on  this  one,  but  the  others 
you  received.    This  is  offered  just  as  a  specimen. 

A. — Of  course,  we  mail  them  as  a  plain  ordinary 
letter  is  mailed,  and  any  seals  on  them  are  placed  on 
them  after  they  were  mailed. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  there  appears  to  have 
been  sent  to  you  sometime,  I  think,  in  April  or  May, 
from  Augusta,  Kansas,  a  copy  of  a  resolution,  which 
is  referred  to  in  the  indictment  in  this  case  relating 
to  our  opposition  to  war  or  conscription,  one  or  the 
other.   You  received  that? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  you  answer  it? 

Q. — Did  you  do  anything,  or  say  anything,  or 
write  anything  to  encourage  the  move  referred  to 
there? 

A. — Absolutely  nothing. 

Q. — Or  to  conspire  with  or  confederate  with  or 
agree  with  the  writer? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — You  also  received  a  copy  of  a  resolution  from 
Crosby,  Minnesota.  Do  you  remember  your  reply  to 
that? 

A. — -Yes,  I  remember  it.  I  think  I  replied  that  it 
was  received  and  placed  on  file  for  reference. 

Q. — Anything  ever  said,  or  done,  or  written  by 
you  with  reference  to  that? 

A. — Absolutely  nothing. 

Q. — You  also  recall  of  receiving  a  copy  of  a  res- 
olution, a  letter  written  by  Frank  Little,  about  the 
2nd  of  April,  I  think,  before  the  declaration  of  war, 
enclosing  a  copy  of  a  resolution  from  Globe  or 
Miami? 

A. — I  don't  remember  that  resolution.  I  don't  re- 
member having  received  it. 

Q. — Well,  you  have  seen  the  letter  here? 

A. — I  got  the  letter,  yes. 


94  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Did  you  make  any  reply  encouraging  that 
local  there  or  the  sender  of  the  resolution? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Did  you  conspire  in  any  manner  with  him,  or 
them  or  any  of  them? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — How  many  locals  are  there,  or  were  there — 
branches  of  the  I.  W.  W.,  about  in  May,  we  will  say 
of  1917? 

A. — I  suppose  that  with  the  industrial  unions  and 
other  branches  and  the  recruiting  unions  there  were 
something  in  the  neighborhood  of  100. 

Q. — One  hundred? 

A. — Yes,  we  have  57  recruiting  unions.  I  think 
we  did  have  at  that  time. 

Q. — You  received  communications  at  one  time  or 
another  from  3  of  those  100? 

A.— What  is  that? 

Q. — I  say  you  received  these  communications 
from  3  of  this  100, — communications  and  resolu- 
tions? 

A. — Yes.  Those  were  the  only  ones  that  I  re- 
member. 

Q.— I  will  ask  you  whether,  within  your  knowl- 
edge, a  resolution,  or  resolutions  of  the  character 
were  ever  adopted  by  any  other  branch  or  any  other 
industrial  union  or  local  recruiting  union  within  the 
organization  other  than  those  three? 

A. — Well,  if  they  were,  I  never  heard  of  it. 

Q. — Now,  it  appears  also,  that  you  received  an 
inquiry  from  Mr.  Rowan,  Secretary  of  500,  in  which 
you  VN^ere  asked — in  which  he  stated  that  he  was  re- 
ceiving inquiries  from  some  members  about  con- 
scription, and  he  replied  that  the  organization  had 
taken  no  position,  in  substance — I  am  not  going  to 
get  the  letter — you  replied  to  that,  that  his  statement 
of  the  position  was  correct.  Is  that  right? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  that  is  right. 

Q. — Had  this  organization  ever  taken  any  action 
whatever  on  conscription? 

A. — It  never  had. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  95 

Q. — You  were  present  at  this  particular  place  of 
the  meeting  of  the  General  Executive  Board  in  July, 
1917? 

A. — I  attended  some  of  the  meetings ;  that  is  part 
of  some  of  the  meetings. 

Q. — It  has  been  said  that  Mr.  Miller,  Mr.  Wier- 
tola  and  all  of  the  members  were  present  there? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now,  do  you  remember  a  discussion  in  that 
meeting  on  this  subject  of  conscription  and  war? 

A. — I  remember  that  there  was  some  discussion. 

Q. — Who  was  it  that  opened  that  discussion? 
Who  was  it  brought  up  the  question? 

A. — I  don't  knov/  whether  it  was  Wiertola  or 
Little. 

Q. — Wiertola  or  Little? 

A. — I  know  that  they  were  both  opposed  to  the 
war. 

Q. — They  were  both  opposed  to  the  war.  You 
had  previously  received  some  very  bitter  letters  from 
Little? 

A. — Well,  I  received  one  or  two  letters  from  him. 
I  do  not  know  that  they  were  so  bitter. 

Q. — Well,  I  call  your  attention  to  a  letter  of 
May  19,  1917,  in  which  he  said  among  other  things: 
'1  fail  to  see  whece  the  I.  W.  W.  can  keep  oat  of  it. 
We  will  be  compeiled  to  take  a  stand  agamst  the 
war.  No  doubt  our  paper  will  be  sapprtsbed,  ma- 
chinery will  be  conliscated  or  destroyed,  so  I  am  of 
tne  opinion  that  we  would  better  iiave  our  work  done 
by  contract" — Weil,  that  is  not  what  I  was  referring 

10. 

You  replied  under  date  of  May  23rd:  "I  have 
been  trying  to  get  along  without  paying  much  atten- 
tion to  the  war  scare,  realizing,  however,  that  we 
are  in  for  a  hard  deal  unless  things  break  just  right 
for  us.  I  feel  that  it  is  getting  closer  every  day.  The 
police  have  raided  the  hall  of  the  Russian  paper  at 
644  West  12th  street  and  broke  open  the  desk  and 
carried  off  the  minute  books,  ledger,  correspondence 
and  so  forth.    Sent  Chaplin  and  the  Russian  editor 


96  TESTIMONY  OF 

over  to  see  Darrow  to  see  if  any  legal  steps  can  be 
taken  about  returning  the  papers.  Hope  to  find  out 
definitely^ — "  and  so  forth.  That  is  your  correspond- 
ence on  that  subject? 

A. — Yes,  sir ;  I  think  that  is  my  letter. 

Q. — Now,  did  you  make  any  effort  to  dispose  of 
your  machinery,  or  dispose  of  anything  to  protect  it 
from  seizure? 

A. — None  whatever.   We  have  added  to  it. 

Q. — You  remember  a  letter  in  which  Little  said 
that  for  his  part  he  would  not  keep  still  about  the 
war,  no  matter  what  the  organization  did? 

A. — Yes ;  I  remember  such  a  letter  from  Frank.. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  your  reply? 

A. — No,  I  don't  just  remember  my  reply,  but  I 
think  I  told  him  something  about  keeping  cool ;  that 
we  were  approaching  a  crisis. 

Q. — In  his  letter  he  said:  ''I,  for  one,  by  God,  I 
will  not  keep  still.  I  want  to  see  our  papers  express 
themselves,"  under  date  of  April  16th,  ''if  we  fight, 
let  us  fight  for  freedom.  Now,  is  the  time  to  take  a 
stand."  Did  he  seem  to  be  in  that  same  frame  of 
mind  when  he  came  to  Chicago? 

A. — Yes,  sir;  he  was  very  much  opposed  to  con- 
scription. 

Q. — On  April  24th,  you  replied  to  him:  "My  ad- 
vise in  this  hour  of  crisis  is  a  calm  head  and  cool 
judgment.  Talk  is  not  the  thing  needed  now.  Many 
of  the  members  feel  as  you  do  but  regard  the  present 
war  between  the  capitalist  nations  as  of  small  import- 
ance when  compared  to  the  great  class  war  in  which 
we  are  engaged."  Is  that  your  attitude? 

A. — That  is  so,  and  I  still  feel  that  way. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  write,  or  say  or  do  anything 
to  encourage  Little  in  the  position  which  he  had 
taken  with  reference  to  the  war? 

A. — No,  I  never  did. 

Q. — Was  he  speaking  or  acting  in  that  matter  as 
a  representative  of  the  organization  ? 

A. — He  was  not. 

Q. — Did  he  tell  the  truth  when  in  his  letter  to 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  97 

you  under  date  of  June  5th  he  wrote  as  follows: 
*'Last  night  I  was  taken  before  Federal  officials  and 
put  through  a  series  of  questions.  They  tried  to  get 
me  to  make  an  official  statement  as  to  the  standing  of 
the  organization  on  conscription,  but  I  told  them  I 
could  not  do  so  as  the  organization  had  taken  no  ac- 
tion." 

A. — He  was  telling  the  truth. 

Q. — The  organization  had  taken  no  action? 

A. — Had  taken  no  action  whatever.  However,  let 
me  say,  Mr.  Vanderveer,  that  a  part  of  the  teaching 
of  the  I.  W.  W.  has  been  anti-military.  We  have  al- 
ways been  opposed  to  war. 

Q. — -Well,  when  did  you  take  that  stand  first? 

A. — Well,  that  has  been  the  position  of  the  organ- 
ization ever  since  it  was  organized. 

Q. — Ever  since  it  was  organized,  and  the  litera- 
ture is  full  of  it? 

A. — I  think  so.  I  think  you  will  find  it  in  much 
of  the  literature  that  has  been  printed. 

Q.— Prior  to  the  entry  of  this  country  in  war  you 
circulated  anything  and  everything  against  war? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now,  do  you  remember  what  was  done  with 
the  Deadly  Parallel  after  the  declaration  of  war? 

A. — Well,  it  was  not  circulated. 

Q. — And  with  the  stickerettes,  "Why  be  a  sol- 
dier?" 

A. — It  was  not  circulated. 

Q. — Was  anything  of  that  character  circulated? 

A. — Not  from  the  headquarters  and  I  don't  think 
from  any  of  the  industrial  unions  or  recruiting  unions. 

Q.^So  that  if  there  was  any  change  in  your  pol- 
icy at  all  it  was  in  line  of  stopping  that  stuff? 

A. — As  nearly  as  we  could.  You  understand  it 
was  a  hard  blow  when  this  country  went  to  war  for 
the  I.  V/.  W.  to  stop  everything  at  once. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  counsel  will  probably  want  to 
know  and  perhaps  the  jury,  why  it  was  you  did  not 
advise  your  members  to  go  to  war,  or  to  join  the 
military  forces,  or  what  not?    Will  you  tell  us? 


98  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — I  did  not  think — I  do  not  think  now  that  it 
was  an  organization  matter.  The  fight  of  the  I.  W. 
W.  is  on  the  economic  field,  and  it  was  not  for  me,  a 
man  who  could  not  be  drafted  for  war,  to  tell  others 
that  they  should  go  to  war,  or  to  tell  them  that  they 
should  not  go  to  war. 

Q. — Did  you  regard  the  objection  of  the  mem- 
bership to  war  as  it  had  existed  for  a  great  many 
years  past,  as  a  conscientious  objection?  Based  upon 
moral  considerations,  I  mean? 

A. — I  think  that  the  members  of  this  organiza- 
tion who  are  opposed  to  war,  are  opposed  for  con- 
scientious reasons.  I  do  not  think  there  are  any  cow- 
ards among  them  that  are  afraid  to  fight,  but  they 
feel  that  the  working  men  of  other  countries  are  the 
same  as  they  are,  and  it  is  for  conscientious  reasons 
that  they  do  not  want  to  kill  the  workers  of  any 
other  country,  whether  he  be  a  Russian,  or  a  German 
or  a  Frenchman,  or  whatever  he  may  be.  Our  organ- 
ization is  composed  of  a  cosmopolitan  riiembership  as 
shown  by  the  past  year  that  we  have  twelve  foreign 
language  papers;  that  many  of  these  defendants  are 
men  of  many,  many  different  nationalities.  This  or- 
ganization is  not  national  in  its  aspiration.  It  is  a 
world  wide  organization.  Efforts  have  always  been 
to  prevent  war  if  possible.  I  attended  the  national 
convention — the  International  Socialist  Convention, 
as  it  was  called,  which  was  held  in  Copenhagen  in 
1910,  and  there,  as  one  of  the  American  section,  I 
demanded  to  be  recorded  in  favor  of  a  general  strike 
against  war. 

Q. — What  do  you  mean  by  the  general  strike? 

A. — By  the  general  strike  there,  I  meant,  as  I 
often  refer  to  the  general  strike,  one  that  would  take 
place  in  all  countries ;  a  strike  of  the  workers  first  in 
all  munition  plants,  then  in  all  transportation  plants, 
so  that  to  make  war  impossible. 

Q. — Not  any  one  country  or  two  alone — so  as  to 
make  it  unequal? 

A.— Well,  if  we  went  on  strike  in  one  country, 
it  meant  that  we  would  be  giving  aid  to  whoever  was 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  99 

contending  against  that  country.  The  general  strike, 
of  course,  means  a  strike  of  all  countries  where  the 
war  is  on. 

Q. — By  the  way — 

A. — If  you  will  permit  me  to  say,  Mr.  Vander- 
veer — 

Q. — Yes,  go  ahead. 

A. — That  I  regard  now  the  German  socialists 
who  were  the  strongest  numerically  of  any  country  in 
the  world,  as  more  responsible  for  the  present  war  in 
Europe  in  which  now  this  country  is  engaged,  than 
the  workers  of  any  other  nation,  because  at  this 
Copenhagen  convention  they  declined  to  go  on  rec- 
ord for  the  general  strike,  and  they  influenced  the 
members  of  the  different  delegations,  not  only  from 
this  country,  but  from  other  countries,  to  prevent 
a  vote  for  the  general  strike.  It  must  be  recognized 
by  everyone  that  if  the  German  workers  had — when 
war  was  declared  on  the  2nd  of  August,  1914 — if 
they  said,  "No,  we  are  going  on  strike.  The  killing  of 
the  Austrian  Duke,  or  whatever  he  was  in  Servia,  is 
not  an  occasion  for  war" — if  they  had  laid  down 
their  tools  and  refused  to  handle  the  munitions,  or  re- 
fuse to  do  anything  for  the  soldiers,  this  war  would 
never  have  been,  even  though  ten  thousand  of  them 
had  been  stood  up  against  a  v/all,  or  a  hundred  thou- 
sand, it  would  have  meant  that  the  German  socialists 
could  have  prevented  this  war.  I  have  felt  very 
strongly  against  the  Germans  on  that  account. 

Q. — Have  you  favored  the  establishment  of  an 
international  relationship,  or  a  relationship  ignor- 
ing, if  you  please,  national  boundaries  between  labor 
as  will  insure  the  future  against  war? 

A. — Well,  the  I.  W.  W.  is  a  world  wide  organiza- 
tion, and  we  hope  to  extend  it.  For  instance,  on  this 
continent,  so  that  it  will  reach  to  the  Strait  of 
Teradelf uga  and  on  the  north  to  Alaska ;  all  of  the 
workers  into  one  union. 

Q. — Are  there  other  syndicalist  labor  movements 
in  England  and  throughout  Europe,  with  whom  you 
favor  associating  for  such  purpose? 


100  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — In  Italy  the  syndicalist  organization  there  is 
now  making  an  effort  to  unite  with  the  I.  W.  W.  They 
have  sent  a  delegation  to  France  to  bring  about  a 
consolidation  with  the  workers  of  that  country,  and 
we  have  an  organization  in  Australia  and  in  England, 
and  a  very  considerable  membership  in  Russia.  We 
are  rapidly  extending  the  membership,  and  more 
rapidly  extending  the  principles  of  this  organiza- 
tion. 

Q. — If  the  workers  of  the  country  and  of  the 
world  can  be  organized  internationally  for  this  pur- 
pose, you  would  regard  that  as  a  more  effective  peace 
measure  than  any  political  organization  of  govern- 
ment to  the  same  end,  do  you? 

A. — If  we  were  organized  in  there  industrially 
rather  than  internationally,  because  international 
means  the  recognition  of  nations,  and  the  recognition 
of  political  parties.  All  nations  are  dominated  by 
political  parties. 

Q. — Well,  let  us  not  get  into  an  academic  discus- 
sion of  that.  We  all  know  what  we  are  talking  about. 
I  say,  do  you  regard  that  as  a  more  effective  and  more 
practical  insurance  against  future  wars  than  the  in- 
ternational political  arrangement,  treaties  and  scraps 
of  paper? 

A. — I  most  certainly  do,  because  the  present  po- 
litical governments  of  nations  are  certain  to  carry  on 
wars. 

Q. — While  you  were  traveling  in  Europe,  what 
countries  did  you  visit  and  lecture  in? 

A. — Denmark,  Sweden,  Norway — I  was  invited 
to  go  to  Finland  but  would  not  be  allowed  to  speak 
there.  I  went  back  to  England.  Traversed  all  of 
Scotland,  Wales, — took  in  all  of  the  industrial  centers 
nearly — nearly  all  of  the  industrial  towns  of  Eng- 
land. 

Q. — Did  you  go  to  the  continent? 

A.— Yes, 

Q. — France? 

A. — I  went  through  France  and  down  to  Italy. 

Q.— Belgium? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  101 

A. — No,  I  did  not  go  to  Belgium. 

Q. — Well,  which  of  the  big  European  countries 
did  you  not  visit? 

A. — Well,  I  did  not  visit  Germany,  or  Austria- 
Hungary. 

Q.— Why  not? 

A. — I  think  perhaps  it  was  largely  on  account  of 
the  opinion  I  had  formed  in  regard  to  the  Germans 
at  the  convention. 

Q. — Were  there  any  other  big  European  countries 
you  did  not  visit? 

A. — I  did  not  visit  Russia,  but  that  was  on  ac- 
count of  the  domination  of  the  Czar  there  and  no 
chance  to  speak. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  what  is  your  attitude 
and  what  has  always  been  your  attitude  towards  au- 
tocracy? 

A. — Well,  I  have  always  been  very  much  opposed 
to  autocracy.  The  teachings  that  I  have  received  as 
an  American  have  naturally  led  me  to  believe  that  all 
workers  should  be  free.  The  history  of  this  country 
although  it  belies  itself  somewhat,  teaches  me  that 
this  is  supposed  to  be  a  land  of  the  free  and  a  home 
of  the  brave,  and  when  coming  in  touch  with  the 
workers  of  other  countries  and  knowing  how  they 
are  treated — for  instance,  in  Germany,  as  they  were 
treated  in  Russia,  everything  has  taught  me  to  dis- 
like and  despise  autocracies  of  all  kinds.  This  includ- 
es industrial  autocracies  as  well  as  government  autoc- 
racies. 

Q. — Have  you  ever  been  in  favor  of  a  form  of 
autocracy  represented  by  the  German  and  Austro- 
Hungarian  governments? 

A. — I  think  perhaps  the  German,  dominated  by 
the  Prussian  Junkerism  is  today  the  worst  autocracy 
in  the  world. 

Q. — What  is  your  attitude  towards  militarism? 
I  mean  by  that  the  maintenance  with  a  country  of  a 
standing  military  establishment,  with  all  that  that 
implies  in  the  way  of  cost,  as  a  menace  to  the  people, 
and  with  all  that  it  implies  industrially  to  the  work- 


102  TESTIMONY  OF 

ers  of  the  country.    Have  you  ever  been  in  favor  of 
that? 

A. — I  never  have,  no. 

Q. — Have  you  been  in  favor  of  the  German  type, 
the  highest  type  known? 

A. — I  certainly  am  not. 

Q. — Are  you  in  favor  of  the  German  type  of  so- 
cialism? 

A. — I  am  not. 

Q. — Ever  been? 

A. — No,  sir.  ■ 

Q. — Are  you  in  favor  of  the  German  industrial 
system,  the — virtually  state  socialism?  Have  you 
ever  been? 

A. — State  capitalism. 

Q._Yes. 

A. — I  am  very  much  opposed  to  it. 

Q. — Well,  what  is  there  about  Germany  that  you 
do  approve  of? 

A. — I  like  the  German  people.  I  do  not  like  the 
northern — the  Prussians. 

Q. — Well,  I  am  speaking  of  the  German  system 
rather  than  the  German  people. 

A. — I  don't  know  of  anything  there  that  I  am 
particularly  fond  of. 

Q. — Now,  is  there  any  secret  about  your  attitude 
towards  them? 

A. — None  at  all. 

Q. — Have  you  expressed  yourself? 

A. — I  expect  I  have,  on  occasions.  I  know  I  have 
indeed. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  any  occasions? 

A. — I  remember— 

Q. — Well,  a  somewhat  inelegant  quotation  was 
read — more  forcible  than  elegant,  was  read  from 
Solidarity? 

A. — I  think  I  made  that  remark  at  a  Frank  Little 
meeting. 

Q. — At  a  Frank  Little  meeting? 

A. — Yes,  where  I  said  that  if  I  could,  as  a  means 
of  stopping  the  war,  I  would  take  the  guts  of  the 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  103 

Kaiser  and  I  would  strangle  the  last  loyal  bastard 
born. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  anything  about  "eating 
rats"  at  any  time,  or  on  any  occasion? 

A.— Well,  I  have  said  that  on  more  than  one  oc- 
casion. 

Q.— What  was  that? 

A. — Where  I  hoped  that  the  Germans  would  be 
compelled  to  eat  rats  as  they  made  the  French  do. 

Q.— At  the  Siege  of  Paris? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Do  you  recall  an  occasion  of  where  you  were 
invited  or  requested  by  a  man  by  the  name  of  Sugar- 
man,~  of  St.  Paul  or  Minneapolis  to  publish  an  anti- 
conscription  leaflet  sometim-e  in  May  or  June,  1917? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Tell  the  jury,  please  what  occurred  at  this 
time  ? 

A. — This  man  Sugarman — a  fellow  worker  he  is 
— and  Leslie  H.  Marcy,  who  came — 

Q. — Is  he  a  fellow  worker  or  a  socialist? 

A. — He  is  a  socialist,  of  the  International  Socialist 
Review. 

Q. — Is  he  a  member  of  the  I.  W.  W.  ? 

A. — No.  They  came  to  headquarters,  and  this 
young  Sugarman,  he  asked  me  if  I  would  publish,  or 
have  this  statement  published  in  the  print  shop  of  the 
I.  W.  W.  I  asked  him  why  he  brought  it  to  me.  I 
said,  *'We  don't  do  any  outside  printing  in  our  shop 
at  all."  "Well'  he  said,  "I  can't  get  it  printed  else- 
where." "Well,"  I  said,  "you  certainly  can't  get  it 
printed  in  our  shop."   He  wants  to  know  why. 

"Well,"  I  said,  "in  the  first  place  this  organization 
has  never  taken  a  position  on  the  war  and  we  are 
not  going  to  do  it  for  someone  else."  I  think  that  was 
the  gist  of  the  conversation  that  we  had. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  can  you  recall  a  single 
thing  done  or  said  by  you  in  aid  of  anyone  within  or 
outside  of  this  organization,  in  his  opposition  to  this 
war,  or  in  his  opposition  to  conscription,  or  to  any- 


104  TESTIMONY  OF 

thing  having  to  do  with  the  carrying  on  of  the  war, 
or  the  country's  war  operations? 

A. — I  cannot  recall  a  single  word  or  a  line  that  I 
have  written  nor  a  thought  that  I  possessed,  of  any 
effort  on  my  part  to  stop  the  war. 

Q. — Can  you  estimate  how  many  thousand  or 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  your  letters  are  to  be  found 
upstairs? 

A. — Well,  I  should  say  there  are  perhaps,  to 
make  a  conservative  estimate,  I  should  say  12,000 
or  15,000  letters;  and  all  the  bulletins  and  all  the 
circulars.  Now,  Mr.  Vanderveer,  I  say  this,  I  don't 
want  the  jury  and  I  don't  want  these  defendants  to 
get  the  idea  that  I  am  in  favor  of  war.  I  am  very 
much  opposed  to  war  and  would  have  the  war  stop- 
ped today,  if  it  were  in  rny  power  to  do  it. 

Q. — Your  position  in  that  matter — 

A. — I  believe  that  there  are  other  methods  by 
which  human  beings  should  settle  any  existing  dif- 
ficulties. To  think  of  men  of  different  nationalities, 
because  they  speak  different  tongues  to  be  lined  up, 
millions  of  them — millions,  now,  as  truthfully  set 
forth  in  that  Deadly  Parallel, — have  been  murdered. 
It  is  not  only  the  murdering  of  the  men,  it  is  the  suf- 
fering of  their  wives  and  their  children,  and  it  is 
what  this  war  means  to  society  after  the  war  is  over. 
Somewhere  in  the  files  here  I  jotted  down  what  it 
meant  after  the  war.  Nothing  for  a  hundred  years 
but  war,  war,  war;  nothing  to  follow  the  war-crip- 
ples, war  widows,  war  orphans,  war  stories,  war 
pictures  and  war  everything.  That  is  the  terrible 
part  of  this  war.  I  hope  even  if  it  be  necessary  that 
every  man  that  is  imbued  with  war,  that  he  will  fight 
long  enough  to  drive  the  spirit  of  hate  and  war  out 
of  his  breast,  that  this  may  be  the  last  war  that  the 
world  will  ever  know. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  you  have  heard  counsel  in  his 
opening  statement  to  the  jury  describe  the  industrial 
scheme  of  the  organization  adopted  by  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World,  yourself,  the  executive  head, 
seated  as  he  said,  in  a  swivel  chair,  radiating  out 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  105 

from  your  swivel  chair,  a  number  of  industrial 
unions.   How  many  of  those,  by  the  way? 

"A. — Sixteen,  I  think. 

Q. — Sixteen  industrial  unions.  And  then  radiat- 
ing out  from  each  of  those  industrial  unions  again,  a 
number  of  branches,  that  is  the  scheme  of  organiza- 
tion? 

A. — He  described  it  very  well. 

Q. — You  believe  it  is  efficient,  do  you? 

A.— What  is  that? 

Q. — You  believe  that  it  is  an  efficient  scheme  of 
organization,  do  you? 

A. — I  do,  indeed. 

Q. — Now,  how  many  of  those  16 — have  you — if 
you  had  been  attempting,  or  conspiring  with  anybody 
to  prevent  the  production  of  food  stuffs,  or  to  inter- 
fere with  the  enlistment  of  men,  or  the  drafting  of 
men,  how  would  you  have  used  this  organization  and 
its  members?   What  would  you  have  done? 

A. — Well,  now,  just  let  me  change  that  thing  in 
connection  with  what  Mr.  Nebeker  had  to  say  about 
the  description  of  the  organization : 

The  power  of  this  organization  does  not  come 
down  from  this  swivel  chair.  The  fellow  who  occu- 
pies that  swivel  chair  is  the  smallest  potato  in  the 
row.  This  organization  is  conducted  from  the  mem- 
bership up,  and  if  I  were  sitting  in  the  swivel  chair, 
an  uncrowned  king,  as  described  by  Mr.  Nebeker,  in 
order  to  conspire  to  prevent  Vv^ar,  you  would  find 
these  files  full  of  bulletins — circulars  and  letters — 
you  would  find  articles  in  the  newspapers  inspired 
by  the  fellow  in  the  swivel  chair. 

Q. — Thirteen  or  fourteen  newspapers? 

A. — Well,  foreign  newspapers,  and  two  English 
newspapers  and  access  to  many  others. 

Q. — How  about  the  bulletins? 

A. — Well,  all  of  the  industrial  unions  issue  their 
bulletins  and  also  the  bulletin  in  circular  letters  go- 
ing out  from  the  headquarters.  I  probably  would 
have  suggested  to  Nef  or  Forrest  Edwards  that  some 
steps  should  be  taken  to  prevent  the  agricultural 


106  TESTIMONY  OF 

workers  from  harvesting  any  of  the  crops,  wheat, 
barley,  oats,  rye  or  rice,  or  any  other  crop.  If  I  was 
conspiring  against  the  war,  that  is  certainly  what 
I  would  have  done.  I  would  have  got  in  touch  with 
Francis  Miller,  and  with  Doree,  who  was  then  sec- 
retary-treasurer of  the  Textile  Workers,  and  urged 
that  something  that  Mr.  Nebeker  describes  as  sabot- 
age be  put  in  operation  in  those  shops  to  prevent  out- 
put. I  would  have  used — 

Q. — Now,  let  us  pick  up  these  in  passing.  Was 
there  any  strike  in  the  textile  workers? 

A. — There  was  not. 

Q.-— Was  there  any  sabotage? 

A. — There  was  not. 

Q. — Was  there  anything  done  to  curtail  or  inter- 
fere with  production? 

A. — Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q. — rYou  heard  on  the  other  hand  Mr.  Miller  tes- 
tify that  he  was  inspecting  for  the  government  there  ? 

A. — Yes,  sir;  and  a  good  one,  he  said. 

Q. — Now,  was  there  anything  done  in  the  agri- 
cultural workers? 

A. — There  was  not,  with  the  exception  of  South 
Dakota. 

Q. — That  little  strike  around  Aberdeen? 

A. — Yes,  on  account  of  the  men  being  beaten  up 
there. 

Q. — What  was  done  in  North  Dakota? 

A. — Well,  in  North  Dakota,  it  has  all  been  testi- 
fied to — 

Q. — The  agreement  amongst  the  farmers — 

A. — It  has  all  been  testified  to,  as  to  the  tacit 
agreement  that  was  entered  into. 

Q. — Now,  take  up  the  marine  transport  workers. 
What  has  been  done  there? 

A. — Well,  what  would  I  have  done? 

Q._Yes. 

A. — Well,  I  would  have  used  my  influence  to 
prevent  the  marine  transport  workers — I  probably 
being  King  in  that  swivel  chair,  would  have  had  some 
influence,  and  I  would  have  used  that  influence  to 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  107 

prevent  the  Marine  Transport  Workers  of  Phila- 
delphia and  other  eastern  ports  from  loading  any  of 
the  boats;  from  loading  the  ammunition;  the  carry- 
ing of  the  soldiers.  But  there  has  not  been  any  strike 
in  Philadelphia. 

Q. — Well,  maybe  you  have  some  influence,  have 
you,  Mr.  Haywood,  with  the  organization? 
A. — Well,  I  think  so,  perhaps. 
Q. — Well,  if  you  had  been  in  such  a  conspiracy, 
would  the  marine  transport  workers  be  convoying 
the  troop  ships  across,  troops  and  munitions? 

A. — If  I  had  been  a  good  conspirator  and  had 
help  enough,  certainly  there  would  not  have  been 
any  transport  boats  or  supply  boats  go  to  France. 

Q. — Would  the  I.  W.  W.  be  handling  munitions  in 
the  Philadelphia  navy  yard? 
A. — They  would  not. 

Q. — Would  there  have  be^n  some  explosions  in 
Philadelphia? 

A. — I  was  just  going  to  say,  if  they  had  been 
handling  them  there  would  have  been  explosions. 
There  has  not  been  an  explosion  in  the  Philadelphia 
yards  nor  any  interference  with  any  of  the  supplies. 
Q. — Now,  in  the  iron  mining  industry  what 
v/ould  you  have  tried  to  do? 

A. — Well,  I  would  have  tried  to  have  got  the 
miners  to  go  on  strike  there.  I  might  say  that  I  had — 
Q. — There  was  a  strike  there  in  1916. 
A. — I  did  write  to  Jacobson  to  find  out  what  good 
could  be  done  there  for  a  6  hour  day  and  a  $6  day, 
but  that  was  not  against  the  government. 
Q. — There  was  a  strike  there  in  1916? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — About  how  many  members  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
involved? 

A. — About  17,000  when  the  membership  was  the 
highest. 

Q.— Now,  on  the  lake  carriers — ^the  marine  trans- 
port workers  number  200,  carrying  wheat,  grain  and 
ore  from  the  Minnesota  and  Michigan  country,  what 
would  you  have  tried  to  do? 


108  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Well,  we  did  not  have  very  many  members 
on  the  lakes  at  any  time,  but  naturally  if  I  had  been 
conspiring  I  would  have  tried  to  prevent  those  ships 
from  carrying  either  iron  or  wheat  to  their  points  of 
destination  or  from  loading  it. 

Q.— Did  you? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — Was  there  any  strike? 

A, — There  was  not  a  strike;  never  any  dispute. 

Q. — Now,  in  the  woods,  what  would  you  have 
done?    The  lumber  industry? 

A. — Well,  I  would  have  done  the  same  thing.  I 
would  have  tried  to  have  prevented  the  output. 

Q. — Would  you  have  tried  to  settle  the  strike? 

A. — I  would  not. 

Q. — Would  you  have  sent  me,  or  any  other  rep- 
resentative to  confer  with  the  government  or  the 
governor? 

A. — Naturally  not,  if  I  had  been  conspiring,  but 
on  the  other  hand^  you  will  find  evidence  here  in 
the  files  of  where  i  made  efforts  to  have  the  strike 
settled.  I  expressed  my  satisfaction  when  the  strike 
was  settled ;  it  is  not  the  desire,  or  not  the  policy  of 
this  organization  to  carry  on  long  strikes  if  they  can 
be  prevented.  Strikes  in  the  copper  mines,  in  the 
lumber  industry, — those  strikes  could  have  been  set- 
tled in  one  day  if  the  profiteers  who  owned- — who 
claimed  to  own,  but  do  not  in  fact, — the  mines  and 
forests, — if  they  had  granted — it  was  only  a  little  in 
the  way  of  demands, — the  strikes  could  have  been 
settled  in  one  day.  Now,  the  fact  that  the  copper  out- 
put was  limited  must  not  be  charged  to  the  I.  W.  W. 
It  is  to  be  charged  to  the  Phelps-Dodge  Company;  to 
the  W.  A.  Clarke  Company;  the  Anaconda  Smelter 
Company — the  Anaconda  Mining  Company  and  the 
dearth  of  lumber,  if  there  was  any,  must  be  charged 
to  the  lumber  barons  of  the  Northwest  and' not  to  the 
1.  W.  W. ;  because  we  were  willing  to  settle  the  strike 
at  any  time.  Keep  in  mind  this,  that  their  increased 
profits  were  from  13  to  33  cents,  that  they  got  for 
copper.  In  the  lumber  industry  from  $18  a  thousand 


WM.  DVHAYWOOD  109 

to  $110  a  thousands  Now,  what  did  the  lumber 
workers  ask?  That  would  have  taken  so  much  out 
of  these  tremendous  profits  to  have  made  an  8  hour 
day  and  a  little  increase  in  wages;  the  betterment 
of  the  bunkhouse  conditions  and  the  betterment  of 
housing  conditions.  It  would  not  have  cost  but  a 
trifle  out  of  the  increased  profits.  We  are  after  all 
of  these  profits,  I  might  remark,  some  of  these  days. 
That  is  what  we  are  organizing  for,  to  prevent  profits. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  if  you  had  been  conspiring 
for  this  purpose  would  you  have  suggested  the  gov- 
ernment taking  over  or  permitted  the  suggestion  that 
the  government  take  over  and  operate  these  indus- 
tries ? 

A. — Why,  I  certainly  would  not  have.  I  am  not 
very  strong  for  government  ownership  at  that. 

Q. — By  the  way,  I  believe  you  have  pleaded 
guilty  to  the  second  count  of  this  indictment.  In  this 
indictment  you  have  been  charged  with  these  other 
defendants  with  conspiring  to  interfere  with  the  prof- 
its of  certain  people  who  are  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  munitions  supplies? 

A. — We  are  conspiring  the — we  are  conspiring  to 
prevent  the  making  of  profits  on  labor  power  in  any 
industry.  We  are  conspiring  against  the  dividend 
makers.  We  are  conspiring  against  rent  and  interest. 
We  want  to  establish — for  a  new  society  where  peo- 
ple can  live  without  profit,  and  without  dividends, 
without  rent  and  without  interest,  if  it  is  possible, — 
and  it  is,  if  people  will  live  normally  and  live  like 
human  beings  should  live.  I  would  say  that  if  that  is 
a  conspiracy,  we  are  conspiring. 

Q. — Where  there  will  be  no  rich  and  no  poor? 

A. — No  rich  and  no  poor;  no  millionaires,  and  no 
paupers;  no  palaces  and  no  hovels;  where  every 
man's  child  will  receive  the  assurance  and  protection 
of  all  society  from  the  time  it  is  born  to  the  grave. 
We  are — where  every  man  will  have  an  opportunity, 
and  where  no  man  will  have  to  work  13  hours  in  a 
smelter.  You  remember  Benjamin  Franklin  said  that 
four  hours'  work  was  enough  to  produce  all  of  the 


110  TESTIMONY  OF 

comforts  of  life.  He  said  that  over  a  hundred  years 
ago.  Now,  with  modern  machinery,  it  is  certain  that 
if  everybody  was  working  even  a  little, — I  am  willing 
to  do  that  myself, — that  we  can  produce  all  of  the 
necessities  and  all  of  the  luxuries  of  life,  all  neces- 
saries for  the  life  and  happiness  of  people  in  much 
less  than  four  hours,  now,  with  the  wonderful  ma- 
chinery that  we  have  got. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  You  may  take  the  wit- 
ness— Oh,  one  other  question. 

Q. — You  know  the  song  ''Christians  at  War." 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Do  you  know  who  wrote  it? 

A. — Yes,  John  Kendrick. 

Q. — Where  is  he? 

A. — He  is  in  the  army,  in  the  engineer  corps. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  That's  all. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION 
By  Mr.  Nebeker: 

Q. — I  believe  you  stated  that  you  were  connect- 
ed with  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  before  you 
became  I.  W.  W.  leader,  is  that  right? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Where  did  you  become  connected  with  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners? 

A. — Well,  Silver  City,  Idaho. 

Q._When? 

A. — August  10,  1896. 

Q. — And  did  you  continue  to  be  identified  with 
that  organization  down  to  the  time  you  became  or- 
ganizer of  the  I.  W.  W.  in  1905? 

A. — And  for  two  years  afterwards.  The  Western 
Federation  of  Miners  was  an  integral  part  of  the  I. 
W.  W. 

Q. — Was  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  con- 
nected at  all  with  the  incident  that  counsel  asked  you 
about  of  the  trouble  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes  in  Idaho? 

A. — It  was  the  members  of  the  Western  Fed- 
eration of  Miners  that  were  on  strike  in  Idaho. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  111 

Q. — When  was  that? 

A. — The  first  strike  was  in  1892. 

Q. — And  when  was  the  second  strike  ? 

A.-^1899. 

Q. — When  was  the  bull-pen  used,  as  you  referred 
to? 

A. — On  both  occasions.  The  first  bull  pen  was  a 
two  story  structure. 

Q. — Was  there  any  violence  there  on  the  part  of 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  or  anybody  else 
on  either  of  those  occasions? 

A. — There  was  violence  on  both  occasions. 

Q. — Where?  Were  any  mines  blown  up? 

A. — No  mines  blown  up. 

Q. — Any  mill  blown  up? 

A. — The  Helena-Frisco  was  blown  up  on  the  first 
strike  and  the  Bunker  Hill  Sullivan  mill  on  the  second 
strike. 

Q. — Any  people  killed  in  those  explosions? 

A. — No,  not  in  the  explosions. 

Q. — Blown  up  by  dynamite? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q.— Powder? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Who  was  the  governor  of  Idaho  at  the  time 
of  the  Coeur  d'Alene  trouble? 

A. — Governor  Sweet,  the  first  strike,  and  Gov- 
ernor Steunenberg,  the  second  strike. 

Q. — Did  anything  afterwards  happen  to  Gov- 
ernor Steunenberg? 

A. — He  was  blown  up. 

Q.— How  long  afterwards? 

A. — Six  years,  about  six  years. 

Q. — Is  that  one  of  the  mottos  of  your  organiza- 
tion: "We  never  forget"? 

MR.  VANDERVEEE:  What  do  you  mean,  the  I. 
W.  W.? 

MR.  NEBEKER :  The  I,  W.  W. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  was  not  in  existence  at 
that  time. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  That  is  admitted. 


112  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Is  it  one  of  the  slogans  of  the  I.  W.  W.  that 
"We  never  forget"? 

A. — That  has — that  is  not  a  slogan,  it  has  been  a 
sort  of  words  that  have  been  used. 

Q. — Isn't  it  in  your  papers,  and  in  your  pam- 
phlets, and  on  the  stickerettes,  and  in  thousands  of 
places  in  the  thousands  in  the  literature  and  v^ritings 
of  your  organization? 

A. — Let  me  tell  you  where  it  was  first  used. 

Q. — Just  answer  that  question  first. 

A. — Yes.  Now,  let  me  tell  you  where  it  was  first 
used. 

Q. — Well,  when  did  you  first  use  it? 

A.— I  first  used  it  on  a  program  of  the  Joe  Hill 
funeral. 

Q.— The  first  time? 

A. — Yes,  the  first  time,  I  think  so. 

Q. — Didn't  you  use  that  while  you  were  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners? 

A. — I  don't  believe  so.  I  don't  remember  it.  It 
is  possible. 

Q. — Now,  just  think  for  a  minute.  Wasn't  that  a 
common  slogan  at  the  time  of  the  Coeur  d'Alene 
troubles  and  the  Cripple  Creek  troubles,  and  the 
troubles  in  Victor,  Colorado? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — At  the  time  of  the  blowing  up  of  the  Inde- 
pendence depot  and  all  of  those  troubles  in  Colo- 
rado? 

A. — I  think  not.  I  think  the  first  time  I  used  it 
was  on  the  Joe  Hill  funeral. 

Q. — Didn't  that  appear  time  and  time  again  on 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners'  literature  at  the 
time  you  were  the  dominating  spirit  in  it? 

A. — If  it  did,  why  don't  you  bring  it  here  ? 

Q. — I  am  asking  you? 

A. — I  say  no. 

Q. — Did  Governor  Steunenberg  acquire  the  en- 
mity of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  in  any- 
thing that  he  did  in  connection  with  the  Coeur 
d'Alene  trouble? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  113 

A. — Naturally  they  were  very  sore  at  Governor 
Steunenberg. 

Q._Why? 

A. — On  account  of  the  troops  in  the  Coeur  d'- 
Alenes. 

Q. — Were  you  very,  very  sore  at  Governor  Steun- 
enberg? 

A. — I  was  as  sore  as  any  other  members.    . 

Q. — You  went  from  Idaho — the  fact  of  the  matter 
is  that  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  leaders 
were  driven  out  of  the  Coeur  d'Alenes,  were  they 
not? 

A. — No,  they  were  not,  not  all  of  them.  Some  of 
them  were.  Not  the  leaders.  Some  of  the  members 
were  compelled  to  leave  the  country. 

Q. — Yes.  And  after  the  Bunker  Hill  Sullivan  mill 
was  blown  up  you  went  to  Colorado? 

A. — Remember,  I  was  in  Silver  City,  Idaho. 

Q. — But  you  went  to  another  clime  shortly  after 
that  catastrophe,  didn't  you? 

A.— What? 

Q. — After  the  blowing  up  of  the  Bunker  Hill- 
Sullivan  mill  ? 

A. — No.  I  lived  in  Idaho  for  something  like  two 
years. 

Q. — Afterwards  ? 

A. — Yes. 

Q. — And  then  went  to  Colorado? 

A. — And  then  went  to  Colorado. 

Q. — And  took  up  residence  in  Denver? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  became  finally  secretary-treasurer  of 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  while  there? 

A. — I  was  elected  before  I  went  there.  That  was 
the  occasion  of  my  going. 

Q. — Now,  during  all  of  these  strikes  and  things 
that  counsel  has  referred  to  in  Colorado — the  Crip- 
ple Creek  strike, — well,  the  strikes  running  all  the 
way  from  1890 — 

A.— 1880, 


114  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— 1894,  that  was  the  first  Cripple  Creek  strike, 
was  it  not? 

A._Yes. 

Q. — 1894,  until  1904,  there  was  constant  trouble 
between  the  people  of  Colorado  on  the  one  side  and 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  on  the  other? 

A. — Not  between  the  people  of  Colorado.  Now, 
remember  that  the  members  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners  were  citizens  and  people  of  Colorado. 

Q. — Well,  put  it  that  way  if  you  want  to. 

A. — Of  course,  I  want  it  truthful. 

Q. — Well,  was  there  trouble  between  the  mine 
owners  of  Colorado  and  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners? 

A. — Yes,  there  was. 

Q. — Trouble  began,  the  trouble  began  about  the 
time  you  landed  in  Colorado,  didn't  it? 

A. — The  trouble  began  in  1880.  The  first  strike 
was  in  Leadville. 

Q. — -Now,  during  those  years — 

A. — Just  a  moment,  just  a  moment. 

Q. were  there  any  violencings  done  by  the 

Western  Federation  of  Miners. 

A. — Just  a  moment. 

Q.— All  right. 

A. — You  asked  me  if  this  trouble  began  on  my 
arrival  in  Colorado? 

Q._Yes. 

A. — You  stated  that  there  was  a  strike  there  in 
1894. 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — There  was  also  the  Leadville  strike  of  1896. 

Q._Yes. 

A. — There  was  also  the  strike  of  1899. 

Q._Yes. 

A. — There  was  the  smeltermen's  strike  of  1899 
and  1900.  All  of  those  strikes  had  taken  place  be- 
fore I  came  to  Colorado. 

Q. — Yes.  They  were  Western  Federation  of 
Miners  strikes,  were  they  not? 

A. — They  were. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  115 

Q. — Were  ypu  an  official  of  that  organization 
during  all  of  the  time  ? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Well,  were  you  identified  with  it  during  all  of 
the  time? 

A. — I  was  identified  with  it  from  1896. 

Q. — Yes,  sir.    In  what  capacity? 

A. — As  a  member. 

Q. — But  who  were  the  leading  spirits  of  it? 
Pettibone  and  Moyer? 

A. — No.  Pettibone  was  not  a  member.  He  was 
in  business  in  Denver.  Moyer  I  don't  think  becam.e  a 
member  until  '99. 

Q. — Now,  while  you  were  there,  however,  later 
on,  was  there  any  violence  perpetrated  against  any 
of  the  mines  of  Colorado? 

Q. — There  were  many  incidents  of  violence  in 
Colorado. 

Q. — In  the  mines?  Any  dynamite  or  blowing  up 
of  the  mines  there  ? 

A. — Yes,  in  the  Vindicator  mine  there  was  a  man 
killed,  in  the  Vindicator  mine. 

Q. — Two  men  killed  there,  were  there  not? 

A. — I  think  one. 

Q. — The  superintendent  and  someone  else? 

A. — I  think  one.   I  don't  remember  that  incident. 

Q. — And  then  was  there  also  a  blowing  up  of  the 
coal  bunkers  of  another  mining  company  there  ? 

A. — I  don't  recall.   Where  was  it? 

Q.— At  Victor? 

A. — I  don't  remember  it. 

Q. — You  don't  recall  that? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  the  blowing  up  of  the  In- 
dependence depot? 

A. — I  do,  indeed. 

Q. — That  was  while  you  were  there  ? 

A. — I  was  in  Denver  that  time. 

Q.- — Yes.  But  while  this  Western  Federation  of 
Miners  trouble  was  on? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 


116  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — How  many  people  were  killed  there? 

A. — I  think  thirteen  or  fourteen. 

Q. — Were  there  some  mine  owners  killed  there? 
Were  there  some  mine  owners  killed  there  other 
than  those  that  you  have  mentioned  while  you  were 
there  ? 

A. — Arthur  Collins  in  Telluride  was  killed. 

Q. — By  the  way,  was  not  Corchoran  killed  in  the 
Coeur  d'Alenes? 

A. — No.    Paul  Corchoran — 

Q. — No,  I  guess  that's  right. 

A. — He  was  sent  to  the  penitentiary. 

Q. — He  was  sent  to  the  penitentiary  in  connec- 
tion with  that? 

A. — Yes,  and  afterwards  pardoned  by  Governor 
Hunt. 

Q. — Do  you  know  Fred  Bradley? 

A. — Of  the  Coeur  d'Alenes? 

Q. — No.  Resided  in  San  Francisco.  But  interest- 
ed in  mines  in  Colorado? 

A. — No,  I  think  you  are  mistaken.  Fred  Bradley 
was  interested  in  the  Coeur  d'Alenes,  I  think. 

Q._Well— 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Talk  louder,  Mr.  Haywood. 

A. — Fred  Bradley  was  interested  in  the  Coeur 
d'Alenes,  if  I  remember  rightly. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Did  anything  happen  to 
him  during  the  time  of  these  troubles  there  in  Colo- 
rado? 

A. — Well,  his  apartment  there  he  claimed  that 
there  was  an  explosion  occurred  in  his  apartment. 

Q. — An  explosion  did  occur  and  blinded  him, 
didn't  it? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q.— It  did  not  blind  him? 

A. — No,  sir ;  it  did  not  blind  him. 

Q. — Now,  you  told  counsel — 

A. — You  remember  that  was  a  story  that  Orchard 
told  me — 

Q.— Who  is  Orchard? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  117 

A. — Orchard  is  the  fellow  in  the  penitentiary  in 
Idaho  for  killing  Steunenberg? 

Q. — For  killing  Steunenberg? 

A. — Yes,  sir.  You  will  remember  that  he — I  don't 
know  as  you  will  remember  it,  but  he  testified  that 
he  had  told  me  that  he  had  caused  this  explosion  at 
Bradley's  house  and  that  it  resulted  in  blinding  him. 
He  testified  that  this  incident  had  pleased  me  very 
much.  Now,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is,  that  in  San 
Francisco,  in  the  explosion  there,  it  was  by  gas,  and 
the  testimony  of  Orchard  was  entirely  rebutted  by 
the  fact  that  he  claimed  to  have  stepped  from  the 
porch  onto  another  building  that  was  not  constructed 
until  the  year  after. 

Q. — Now,  you  speak  of  Harry  Orchard.  Was  he 
a  witness  at  the  trial  of  yourself  for  the  assassination 
of  Governor  Steunenberg? 

A. — Yes,  sir ;  he  was. 

Q. — The  ex-Governor  of  Idaho? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

THE  COURT:  Nine  o'clock  Monday  morning, 
gentlemen. 

(Whereupon  at  1:00  o'clock  P.  M.  Court  adjourned  until 
the  following  Monday,  August  12,  1918,  at  9:00  o'clock  A.  M.) 

Monday,  August  12,  1918,  9  o'clock  A.  M. 
Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
(Roll  call  of  defendants,  all  answered  "Present.") 

THE  COURT:  Proceed,  gentlemen. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION    (Continued) 
By  Mr.  Nebeker: 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  how  long  did  your  trial  in 
Idaho,  wherein  you  were  accused  of  murdering  ex- 
Governor  Steunenberg,  last? 

A. — Nearly  three  months. 

Q. — You  have  made  a  statement,  have  you  not, 
before  the  public  a  great  many  times  as  to  the 
amount  of  money  that  was  spent  in  the  defense  in 
that  trial,  haven't  you? 


118  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — I  think  so. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  what  it  is  you  have  stated 
as  being  the  sum? 

A. — I  believe  it  was  $320,000. 

Q. — $324,000  was  expended  in  the  defense  of 
that  case,  was  it? 

A. — I  did  not  say  three  hundred  and  twenty-four 
thousand ;  three  hundred  and  twenty  thousand. 

Q. — Well,  I  call  your  attention  to  your  own  book, 
at  page  16,  at  the  top  of  the  page,  and  see  if  that  does 
not  say  $324,000. 

A. — -This  says  three  hundred  and  tv/enty-four 
thousand,  but  just  then  I  said  three  hundred  and 
twenty  thousand,  or  about  that,  and  you  added  three 
hundred  and  twenty-four  thousand.  I  suppose  this  is 
about  correct  as  given  in  the  book. 

Q. — It  is  your  book,  isn't  it? 

A,-— What  book  is  it?    Let  me  see. 

Q._-The  General  Strike?" 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now  when  the  I.  W.  W.  was  organized,  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  as  it  then  existed,  be- 
came, as  was  supposed,  a  component  part  of  the  L 
W.  W.,  did  it  not? 

A.— The  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Q.— I  mean  the  Western  Federation  of  Labor. 

A.— Well,  all  right;  The  Western  Federation  of 
Miners,  you  mean? 

Q. — The  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  I  will 
get  it  right  some  time. 

A. — The  Western  Federation  of  Miners  became  a 
component  part  of  the  Indsutrial  Workers  of  the 
World. 

Q. — What  was  the  membership  at  that  time? 

A. — The  membership  was  27,000. 

Q.— In  what  way  did  that  organization  vote  or 
take  action  upon  the  proposition  of  becoming  a  com- 
ponent part  of  the  I.  W.  W.  ? 

A. — The  matter  was  first  taken  up  in  conven- 
tion, delegates  elected,  with  instructions  that  if  the 
organization  of  The  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World, 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  119 

the  name  not  being  then  chosen,  was  formed  along 
the  right  lines,  that  the  Western  Federation  of  Min- 
ers should  install  itself.  That  is  to  say,  the  delegates 
were  authorized  to  install  the  Western  Federation 
of  Miners  as  an  integral  part  of  the  I.  W,  W. 

Q. — Well,  in  other  words  a  convention  was  held 
and  some  delegates  v/ere  elected  to  meet  with  dele- 
gates from  other  bodies,  and  these  delegates  were 
given  power  to  act  in  case  an  organization  could  be 
formed,  that  to  them  would  be  satisfactory,  is  that 
the  idea? 

A.— The  regular  convention  of  the  Western  Fed- 
eration of  Miners  met  in  Salt  Lake  City,  and  in  that 
convention  elected  five  delegates  to  attend  the  com- 
ing conference  or  convention  to  be  held  in  Chicago, 
that  is  right. 

Q. — That  convention  elected  you  as  one  of  the 
five? 

A; — One  of  the  five. 

Q. — And  you  and  the  other  four  members  were 
to  determine  whether  the  organization  would  be 
satisfactory? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — It  never  was  referred  back  to  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners,  v/as  it,  and  a  referendum  vote 
taken? 

A. — I  think  it  v/as. 

Q. — Where  and  when? 

A. — Well,  it  would  be  from  Denver  and  would 
be  immediately 'following  the  convention  here  in  Chi- 
cago, if  such  referendum  was  sent  out.  I  would  not 
be  positive  as  to  that. 

Q. — If  such    a  one  was  sent  out? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Who  were  the  other  five  or  the  other  four 
delegates  that  were  elected  at  that  time? 

A.: — There  was  Charles  H.  McKinnon. 

Q. — Is  that  one  of  the  defendants  here? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Charles  H.  Moyer,  was  he  one  of  the  persons 


120  TESTIMONY  OF 

who   was   charged   with   the   murder   of    Governor 
Steimenberg? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Yourself,  McKinnon  and  Moyer. 

A. — Albert  Ryan. 

O.— Albert  Ryan? 

A. — Albert  Ryan.  ^ 

Q.— J.  A,  Baker? 

A. — J.  A.  Baker. 

Q. — That  is  five. 

A.— And  John  M.  O'Neil. 
-     Q. — There  must  have  been  six  then? 

A. — I  think  there  were  seven. 

Q. — That  would  be  seven  without  yourself? 

A.-  -Yes. 

Q. — Now  how  many  people  were  there  in  that 
convention  that  wanted  the  I.  W.  W.? 

A. — I  could  not  state  off  hand  just  how  many 
delegates  there  were  there,  I  think  about  250. 

Q. — Well,  that  is  not  the  convention  then  that  is 
mentioned  in  St.  John's  little  pamphlet,  "History, 
Structure  and  Methods",  wherein  he  said  the  number 
was  thirty-six? 

A. — That  was  the  first  conference. 

Q. — That  was  in  January? 

A. — In  January. 

Q. — January  2nd? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  do  not  call  that  the  convention  that  or- 
ganized the  I.  W.  W.? 

A. — No,  that  was  a  conference  that  issued  the 
first  manifesto  and  the  call  for  a  convention. 

Q. — And  then  the  convention  was  later,  some 
time  in  June  or  July? 

A. — June. 

Q. — Held  in  this  city? 

A. — Held  in  this  city  in  what  is  known  now  as  the 
East  End  Hall. 

Q. — Now,  how  long  did  the  Western  Federation 
of  Miners  continue  even  in  name,  to  be  a  member  of 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  121 

this   organization,   the   Industrial   Workers   of  the 
World? 

A. — I  think  it  was  in  1908,  that  they  finally  de- 
finitely withdrew. 

Q. — That  would  be  three  years  then? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  they  continued  to  be  members? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  was  it  in  1908  that  the  preamble  was 
amended  so  as  to  strike  out  the  words  'Tolitical  Ac- 
tion"? 

A. — Yes,  but  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners. 

Q. — Well,  you  don't  understand  you  need  to 
argue  every  question  do  you,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — I  am  not  arguing,  I  am  not  arguing,  I  am  just 
answering. 

Q. — It  was  at  that  time  that  the  amendment  to 
the  preamble  was  made,  wasn't  it? 

A. — I  think  it  was  at  the  convention  of  1908. 

Q. — Did  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  with- 
draw bodily  from  the  I.  W.  W.  at  that  time? 

A. — Yes,  withdrew  as  an  organization. 

Q. — Did  they  withdraw  from  you  or  did  you 
withdraw  from  them? 

Ae — They  withdrew  from  the  Industrial  Work- 
ers of  the  World. 

Q. — Did  you  continue  your  membership  in  the 
American  Federation — the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners  after  that  time  ? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Have  you  ever  been  connected  with  that  or- 
ganization since? 

A. — I  have  not. 

Q. — Now,  in  the  first  preamble  of  the  organiza- 
tion the  term  ''political  action"  was  in  the  preamble, 
was  it  not? 

A. — Yes.  The  term  "political,"  you  will  find  the 
term  "political"  in  the  first  preamble. 

Q. — That  is  to  say — 


122  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — -Organized  on  the  industrial  and  political 
field. 

Q. — In  the  second  paragraph  it  reads  this  way, 
did  it  not:  ''Between  these  classes  a  struggle  must  go 
on  until  all  the  toilers  come  together  on  the  political 
as  well  as  on  the  industrial  field,  and  take  and  hold 
that  which  they  produce  by  their  labor  through  an 
economic  organization  of  the  v/orking  class,  without 
affiliation  with  any  political  party." 

That  was  finally  amended,  was  it  not,  by  striking 
out  the  words  "political"  in  both  cases,  where  it  oc- 
curs here? 

A. — It  only  occurs  there  in  one  place,  I  think. 

Q. — No,  ''political  party",  and  "political — " 

A.— "Field". 

Q.— "Political  field" ;  both  of  those  terms  v/ere 
amended? 

A. — Eliminated. 

Q.— Stricken  out? 

A.— Yes. 

Q.— In  1908— between  1905  and  1908— 

A. — Will  you  permit  me  to  say  that  an  effort  was 
made  to  strike  out  the  word  "political"  in  the  first 
convention. 

Q. — I  think  that  is  correct,.  I  think  the  history 
shows  that. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — But  the  controversy  at  once  took  place  and 
continued  from  1905  to  1908  over  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  would 
have  anything  at  all  to  do  with  political  action? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  on  the  one  side  was  championed,  that  is, 
that  political  action  should  be  recognized  by  the  In- 
dustrial Workers  of  the  World,  was  championed  very 
largely  by  a  representative  of  the  Socialist  Labor 
Party  by  the  name  of  De  Leon,  was  it  not? 

A. — Well,  he  was  one  of  the  champions,  yes. 

Q. — He  resided  in. New  York  City? 

A.— Yes. 

Q.— He  had  a  paper  called  "The  People"? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  123 

A. — Yes,  'The  Daily  People''  or  "Weekly  Peo- 
ple." 

Q. — Arguments  pro  and  con  on  that  subject  were 
published  in  that  paper? 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — In  that  controversy,  De  Leon  and  his  follow- 
ers urged,  did  they  not,  that  the  Industrial  Workers 
of  the  World  would  at  once  put  themselves  beyond 
the  ban  of  the  law  if  they  eliminated  political  action 
from  their  policy? 

A. — Well,  he  may  have  said  that,  but  that  didn't 
make  it  true. 

Q. — Oh,  well,  I  am  not  saying  whether  it  made 
it  true  or  not;  that  is  what  they  urged  on  that  side, 
was  it  not? 

A. — Well  I  don't  remember  that  he  said  that  it 
would  put  the  organization  beyond  the  ban  of  the 
law. 

Q. — Don't  you  remember? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  that. 

Q. — Don't  you  remember  that  he  also  said,  and 
it  was  urged  in  your  conventions  and  in  the  news- 
papers that  were  used  among  the  membership  of  the 
organization,  that  there  would  be  no  w^ay  for  the  or- 
ganization to  increase  its  membership  lawfully  and 
without  being  a  conspiracy,  if  it  adopted  direct  action 
alone  as  a  basis  of  its  policy? 

A. — It  may  have  said  that.  I  don't  remember  of 
reading  it. 

Q. — You  don't  remember  that? 

A.— No. 

Q. — As  a  matter  of  fact,  that  controversy  w^s 
gotten  out  in  pamphlet  form  and  circulated  widely 
among  the  membership  of  your  organization,  was  it 
not? 

A. — It  may  be  true. 

Q. — Haven't  you  read  that  pamphlet? 

A. — No,  I  have  not. 

Q. — You  haven't  read  it;  well,  nevertheless,  those 
who  demanded  direct  action  and  were  in  favor  of 


124  TESTIMONY  OF 

eliminating  all  use  of  political  action  prevailed,  did 
they  not? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  that  was  the  reason  why  the  preamble 
was  amended  in  1908? 

A. — Well,  it  is  because  the  delegates  of  the  In- 
dustrial Workers  of  the  World  came  to  understand 
that  the  organization  was  an  economic  organization 
and  should  remain  or  should  become  such,  instead 
of  being  political  in  any  phase. 

Q. — No.  But  answer  my  question.  It  was  because 
the  direct  actionists  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World  won  out  in  that  controversy ;  that  is,  they  were 
either  in  the  majority  or  had  more  physical  strength, 
— I  don't  think  that  is  quite  clear  for  your  literature, 
it  was  because  of  that  that  the  preamble  was  amend- 
ed? 

A. — That  is  exactly  what  I  have  said,  it  was  be- 
cause of  the  members  of  the  I.W.W.,  call  them  direct 
actionists  if  you  will,  but  they  came  to  understand 
that  the  organization  must  of  necessity  be  economic. 

Q. — Yes,  sir.  Then  the  clause  that  I  have  read 
where  political  action  was  recognized — 

A. — Now,  I  would  like  to — 

Q. —  (continuing) — was  amended  so  as  to  read 
like  this :  ''Between  these  two  classes  a  struggle  must 
go  on  until  the  workers  of  the  world  organize  as  a 
class,  take  possession  of  the  earth  and  the  machinery 
of  production,  and  abolish  the  wage  system." 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now,  at  that  time  a  considerable  number  of 
the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  withdrew  from 
the  organization,  did  they  not? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so.  The  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners  having — 

Q. — Well,  didn't  it  split  your  organization 
squarely  in  two? 

A.— Not  squarely  in  two ;  it  split  off  a  little  frag- 
ment off  the  corner,  known  as  the  S.  L.  P. 

Q. — That  was  the  Socialist  Labor  Party? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  125 

Q.— Led  by  De  Leon? 
A. — One  of  the  leaders. 

Q. — And  they  organized  an  Industrial  Workers 
of  the  World  for  themselves,  didn't  they? 
A. — They  did. 
Q.— Called  it  such? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Is  it  still  in  existence? 

A. — No,  they  have  changed  the  name.  They  call 
it  the  Workers  Industrial  International  Union. 

Q. — How  many  of  the  members  of  the  organiza- 
tion went  off  into  that  branch  of  the  movement? 

A. — Well,  I  did  see  the  figures  of  a  convention, 
I  think  perhaps — well,  it  was  limited  to  a  few  hun- 
dred. 

Q. — Now,  while  we  are  on  that  subject,  Mr.  Hay- 
wood, I  would  like  to  get  some  idea  in  detail  of  what 
you  call  political  action. 

A. — Well,  I  call  political  action  beginning  either 
from  the  bottom  or  top,  for  instance,  the  government 
of  the  United*  States,  a  political  government,  com- 
posed of  three  separate  divisions,  the  legislative,  judi- 
ciary and  the  executive  administrative. 

Q. — All  three  of  them  and  all  of  their  parts  are 
political? 

A. — Yes,  they  are  all  political,  and  of  course 
that  is  the  same  in  the  state,  having  legislative,  ju- 
dicial and  legislative  departments;  I  don't  know  as 
there  is  any  further  explanation — 

Q. — Well,  that  is  a  general  description? 
A. — ^-I  might  say — 

Q. — Well,  the  method  by  which  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  was  adopted,  was  that  a  political 
method? 

A. — Certainly. 

Q. — That  was  political  action? 
A. — Yes,   but  it  was   not   political   action  that 
brought  about  the  constitution. 
Q. — The  Revolution  was  not? 
A. — ^No,  sir. 
Q. — That  was  direct  action? 


126  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — That  was  direct  action,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — Is  the  action  by  which  a  person  votes  for 
another  for  a  public  office  a  political  action? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — That  is  when  he  goes  and  casts  his  ballot? 

A, — Certainly. 

Q. — Whether  it  be  for  constable  or  for  electors 
for  President  of  the  United  States,  that  is  a  political 
act,  is  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Is  the  method  by  which  controversies  be- 
tween citizens  or  people  adjusted  and  adjudicated 
by  the  courts,  is  that  political  action? 

A.— That  is  one  phase  of  political  action,  one  part 
of  political  government. 

Q. — It  is  not  direct  action? 

A„ — No,  not  direct  action. 

Q. — In  other  words,  if  one  person  sues  another 
in  a  court  of  justice,  that  is  political  action? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  political  action. 
,      Q. — If  a  man  charged  with  the  commission  of  a 
public  offense,  that  is  put  on  trial  before  a  court,  that 
is  political  action. 

A. — Yes,  that  is  political  action. 

Q. — All  of  the  work  that  courts  do  is  political? 

A. — Well,  I  think  I  explained  that  to  you  when 
I  showed  the  divisions — 

Q. — I  know  you  did  in  a  very  general  way,  but  I 
want  this  specific. 

A.— Of  course  this  means  that  all  the  things  that 
the  judicial  department,  the  legislative  department 
and  the  executive  department  do. 

Q. — That  is  not  just  what  I  want;  all  the  things 
that  a  court  does  in  the  administration  of  justice  are 
political? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  not  direct;  the  action  of  people  in  po- 
litical conventions  and  in  primaries  is  political? 

A. — Yes,  but  sometimes  they  use  direct  methods 
in  conventions. 

Q. — You  mean  where  they  use  a  billy  on  a  man's 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  127 

head,  or  something  of  that  kind? 

A. — No,  not  a  billy,  but  the  way  they  scheme  and 
connive. 

Q. — All  of  the  bad  part  of  politics  is  direct  ac- 
tion, is  that  what  you  mean? 

A. — No,  I  should  not  say  that.  I  do  not  know  any 
part  of  politics  that  is  good  action. 

Q.— What  is  it? 

A. — I  don't  know  any  part  of  politics  that  is  good 
action. 

Q. — Yes,  I  appreciate  that.  Now  during  the  first 
years,  the  first  few  years  of  the  existence  of  the  or- 
ganization, you,  with  your  compatriots  and  fellow- 
workers,  were  engaged  in  bringing  a  propaganda  be- 
fore your  membership  and  before  proselytes  of  the 
organization,  were  you  not? 

A. — What  kind  of  propaganda? 

Q. — The  propaganda  that  has  been  put  in  evi- 
dence here,  for  instance,  circulating  the  pamphlet 
''History,  Structure  and  Methods." 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.— That  was  one  of  the  things? 

A. — That  is  one  of  them. 

Q. — Circulating  the  pamphlet,  "The  New  Union- 
ism" by  Tridon. 

A. — Well,  that  was  not  written  in  the  early  years 
of  the  organization. 

Q. — That  was  really  a  later  one,  but  still  after  it 
was  written,  that  was  adopted  as  one  of  the  means  of 
propaganda? 

A. — Some  few  hundreds  of  copies  of  Tridon. 

Q. — Hundreds  of  thousands  of  copies,  you  mean? 

A. — Oh,  no,  no;  he  would  like  that  very  much, 
but  some  few  hundreds  of  copies ;  I  don't  remember 
just  how  many. 

Q. — Well,  your  "General  Strike"  has  been  one  of 
the  books  or  pamphlets  that  was  used  for  the  pur- 
pose of  bringing  propaganda  to  the  attention  of  the 
classes  I  have  spoken  of? 

A. — Yes,  but  the  "General  Strike"  was  a  speech 
that  I  delivered  when  I  still  believed  or  was  a  mem- 


128  TESTIMONY  OF 

ber  of  the  Socialist  Party. 

Q. — Yes,  I  understand.  But  in  that  "General 
Strike"  you  made  it  very  clear  that  even  although  you 
were  a  member  of  the  Socialist  Party  at  that  time, 
that  you  did  not  believe  in  direct  action. 

A. — But  I  did  believe  in  direct  action. 

Q.— Did  you? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did  you  also  believe  in  revolution? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  believed  in  revolution,  did  you? 

A. — Yes,  sir„ 

Q. — Did  you  believe  that  a  strike  was  an  incipi- 
ent revolution,  a  general  strike? 

A. — Yes,  it  is,  in  itself,  an  incipient  revolution. 

Q. — A  general  strike  is  an  incipient  revolution, 
and  you  so  state  in  this  pamphlet  of  yours? 

A. — I  think  so. 

Q.— Then  there  was  the  books  on  "Sabotage" 
that  you  also  ciruclated  among  the  membership  and 
proselytes  of  the  organization? 

A.— Well,  the  books  on  "Sabotage"  were  not  cir- 
culated until  rather  late — a  late  date. 

Q. — Beginning  about  when? 

A. — I  think  perhaps  in  1912  or  '13,  1913,  maybe 
1914. 

Q. — Then  before  that  time  the  organization  was 
circulating  a  propaganda  that  had  for  its  purpose 
mainly  the  destroying  of  the  idea  of  patriotism  in  its 
generally  accepted  sense? 

A. — No,  the  aims  and  purposes  of  the  literature 
that  was  distributed  was  to  disseminate  the  ideas  of 
industrial  unionism,  not  to  destroy,  but  to  build,  to 
construct;  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  is 
not  a  destructive  organization,  but  a  constructive  one. 

A.— Well— 

Q. — National  patriotism? 

A. — Well,  of  course  you  know  national  patriotism 
can  be  defined  in  many  different  ways. 

Q. — Well,  define  it  any  way  you  want  to,  don't 
you  think  it  is?    Or,  I  will  withdraw  that.   I  will  ask 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  129 

you  this :  Isn't  it  destructive  of  the  national  patriot- 
ism that  has  for  many  years  past  and  at  the  present 
time  is  taught  to  the  school  children  of  this  country, 
in  the  public  schools? 

A. — What  kind  of  patriotism  do  they  teach  in  the 
public  schools?    Reverence  to  the  flag? 

Q. — Don't  you  know? 

A. — You  mean  the  obligation  and  oath  that  the 
kids  repeat  every  morning  to  the  flag? 

Q. — No,  the  patriotism  to  love  and  uphold  the 
institutions  of  this  country,  to  revere  the  flag? 

A. — Well,  you  know  the  teachers  in  the  first 
place — 

Q._Yes. 

A. — And  the  kiddies  much  less,  understand  the 
institutions  of  this  country. 

Q. — Well  now,  you  are  drifting  away  from  the 
main  point. 

A. — No,  I  am  not  drifting  away  from  the  main 
point. 

Q. — Hasn't  the  organization  and  to  your 
knowledge,  hasn't  the  organization  carried  on  a  prop- 
aganda for  the  purpose  of  thwarting  and  destroy- 
ing the  instincts  of  patriotism  that  are  taught  to  the 
school  children  of  this  country  in  the  schools? 

A. — Well,  when  you  say  the  institutions  of  this 
country,  now  there  are  many  institutions  in  this  coun- 
try that  are  wrong. 

THE  COURT:  Mr.  Witness,  it  is  not  a  question  of 
whether  they  are  wrong  or  right;  if  you  know  what 
the  counsel  has  in  mind — 

A. — I  want  to  find  out  what  he  has  in  mind. 

THE  COURT:  When  he  refers  to  institutions, 
whether  you  like  them  or  not,  answer  the  question. 

A.— Well,  I  don't  know  that  the  I.  W.  W.  has 
ever  done  that. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— You  don't  know  that  they 
have? 

A. — I  have  spoken  to  school  children  myself,  and 
I  never  said  anything  to  them  about  the  institutions 
of  the  country. 


130  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Well,  you  have  been  pretty  foxy,  haven't 
you? 

A. — I  have  heard  you  say  so,  sir. 

Q. — You  don't  admit  it? 

A. — No,  I  don't  admit  it.  I  have  not  pussy-footed 
or  ducked. 

Q. — You  have  said  so  many  times,  haven't  you? 

A. — No,  I  haven't,  nor  in  my  letters  nor  in  my 
words. 

Q. — Well,  we  will  see  a  little  later. 

A. — ;A11  right. 

Q. — Now%  ''History,  Structure  and  Methods"  you 
say  is  one  of  the  first  books  you  started  out  among 
the  membership  to  accomplish  its  mission,  and  the 
mission  of  propaganda  that  it  advances? 

A. — I  don't  remember  when  "History,  Structure 
and  Methods"  was  written.  I  think  probably  not  un- 
til 1910  or  '11. 

Q. — Well  then,  from  that  time  on,  it  was  used 
and  used  very  extensively? 

A. — Yes,  we  have  issued  several  editions  of  "His- 
tory, Structure  and  Methods." 

Q. — In  that  book  on  pages  15  and  16  1  notice  this 
statement : 

"During  strikes  the  works  are  closely  picketed 
and  every  effort  made  to  keep  the  employers  from 
getting  workers  into  the  shops.  All  supplies  are  cut 
off  from  strike-bound  shops.  All  shipments  are  re- 
fused or  missent,  delayed  and  lost  if  possible.  Strike- 
breakers are  also  isolated  to  the  full  extent  of  the 
power  of  the  organization.  Interference  by  the  Gov- 
ernment is  resented  by  open  violation  of  the  Govern- 
ment's orders," — now  that  means  by  the  United 
States  or  even  a  state  or  city,  or  any  other  branch 
of  the  government,  "resented  by  open  violation  of 
the  government's  orders," — that  would  include  an 
order  of  court  as  well  as  anything  6lse,  would  it? 

A. — Naturally.    That  is  the  way  it  reads  there. 

Q. — "Going  to  jail  en  masse,  causing  expense  to 
the  tax  payers — which  is  but  another  name  for  the 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  131 

employing  class."   Now  that  is  in  that  book,  isn't  it? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Do  you  think  that  that  has  a  tendency  to 
create  in  the  minds  of  members  of  the  I.  W.  W.  patri- 
otism for  the  Government? 

A. — I  think  that  is  what  every  member  of  the  I. 
W.  W.  in  the  west,  who  went  up  against  the  militia 
on  numerous  occasions — 

Q. — No,  I  am  not  asking  you — 

A. — This  is  part  of  the  government. 

Q. — I  am  not  asking  you  what  you  think. 

A. — Well,  that  is  where  I  come  from*;  that  is 
where  I  got  my  psychology;  that  is  why  I  learned 
what  little  I  know. 

Q. — Well,  it  is  a  good  place. 

A. — And  I  felt  just  as  that  book  expresses  about 
that  department  of  government.  We  know  that 
martial  law  was  declared,  habeas  corpus  was  sus- 
pended— 

Q. — Well,  Mr.  Haywood,  I  must  ask  you  to  just 
let  me  question  you. 

A. — All  right. 

Q. — I  want  to  ask  you  again  now,  do  you  think 
that  that  sort  of  a  statement  has  a  tendency  to  make 
men  who  read  it  and  believe  it  and  follow  it  loyal, 
good  citizens  in  this  country? 

A.— I  think  it  is  going  to  improve  the  institutions 
of  this  country  if  some  men  understand  that. 

Q. — That  is  not  answering.    Won't  you  answer? 

A. — Why,  give  me  that  question  again;  sure,  I 
want  to  answer  it. 

THE  COURT:  Read  the  question,  Mr.  Reporter. 
(Question  read.) 

A.— Yes. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Now  in  this  same  book  on  pages 
14  and  15  I  find  this:  ''But  if  history  is  right,  we 
know  this  much,  'right  and  wrong'  are  relative  terms, 
and  it  all  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of  power, 
cold,  unsentimental  power  from  every  standpoint, 
except  morally, — religion,  et  cetera,  the  capitalists 
are  considered  right." 


132  TESTIMONY  OF 

That  is  to  say,  what  that  means  is,  the  law,  morals 
and  religion  of  this  time  is  the  law,  morals  and  re- 
ligion of  the  capitalist  class,  is  that  what  that  means? 

A. — Well,  I  think  that  is  the  way  that  St.  John 
meant  to  express  it. 

Q._What? 

A. — I  think  that  is  the  way  St.  John  meant  to 
express  it. 

Q. — That  is  what  I  mean.  *'The  capitalists  are 
considered  right  and  justified  in  their  control  and 
ownership  of  industries  and  exploitation  of  labor,  be- 
cause they  have  the  means  to  hire  and  have  organ- 
ized a  gang  that  skulks  under  the  name  of  law." 

Now,  to  whom  is  that  reference  made,  ''the  gang 
that  skulks  under  the  name  of  law",  that  is  the  capi- 
talist class,  is  it? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  the  capitalist  class,  and  the  men 
whom  they  elect,  not  only  to  Congress  but  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  as  is  clearly  set  forth  in  Presi- 
dent Wilson's  ''New  Freedom"  and  is  expressed  and 
defined  and  prophecied  in  Abraham  Lincoln's  mes- 
sage to  Congress  in  1864. 

Q. — Now  let's  see  if  it  is,  see  if  it  means  them. 

A. — All  right. 

Q. — "And  have  organized  a  gang  that  skulks 
under  the  name  of  law,  order  and  authority."  Did 
that  include  the  courts? 

A. — Some  of  the  courts. 

Q. — Federal,  as  well  as  state? 

A. — Well,  I  think  so.  Some  of  the  Federal  courts 
as  well  as  the  state. 

Q. — This  doesn't  say  some  of  them,  does  it? 

A.— No. 

Q.^It  says  all  of  them. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  doesn't  say  any,  does  it? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — "Now,  our  country  has  been 
ravaged  and  stolen" — 

A. — Would  you  allow  me  to  mention  one  of  the 
Federal  courts  that  refers  to? 

Q. — Yes,  go  ahead. 

A. — Well,  for  instance — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  133 

Q. — Don't  take  too  long,  Mr.  Haywood. 
A. — It  won't  take  a  minute. 

Q. — I  don't  want  to  unduly  prolong  this  examina- 
tion. 

A. — When  a  federal  court  assumes  the  right  to 
issue  an  injunction  as  federal  judge  William  Taft  did 
during  the  Ann  Arbor  Railroad  strike,  I  would  say 
that  that  was  usurping  authority  that  did  not  fall 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  court. 

Q. — That  is  to  say,  you  would  say  he  ravaged  and. 
stole  that  authority? 

A. — Well,  that  is  pretty  strong  language  but  that 
is  what  it  means. 

Q. — Well,  you  are  capable  of  even  stronger  lan- 
guage than  that,  aren't  you? 

A. — Have  you  ever  heard  me  use  any  stronger? 
Q. — I  thought  I  heard  something  from  the  witness 
stand  the  other  day  that  sounded  a  little  stronger  to 
me. 

A.— What  was  it? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  don't  know  what  the  cross 
examination  is,  your  Honor,  it  is  not  directed  to  any- 
thing covered — 

THE  COURT:  Sustained. 
MR.  NEBEKER:  Beg  pardon? 
THE  COURT:  Let  us  not  spend  any  time  on  the 
question  of  the  strength. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Well,  it  was  answered: 
"Our  country  has  been  ravaged  and  stolen  by  indus- 
trial pirates,  and  yet  learned  judges  have  decreed 
that  it  was  legal;  attorneys  and  politicians  have 
written  lengthy  briefs  and  argued  long  and  eloquent- 
ly; preachers  have  spoken  wise  sermons;  in  short, 
whatever  the  king  has  done,  the  creatures  have  most 
humbly  considered  right  and  the  guards  and  men  at 
arms  have  been  ready  to  see  that  the  slaves  did  not 
rebel  against  it  at  all.  Preparatory  to  carrying  out 
the  capitalist's  every  will,  this  kept  crew — "  now 
that  word  ''kept"  has  a  very  well  defined  meaning, 
has  it  not? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 


134  TESTIMONY  OF 


Q. — And  you  know  what  it  means? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  that  is  used  in  this  book  in  that  sense? 
A. — Well,  now,  go  ahead  and  mention  in  what 
sense. 

Q. — Well,   in  the   sense  that  the   word   ''kept" 
generally  has. 

A. — I  understand  what  the  word  ''kept"  means. 
Q. — And  this  "kept  crev/,"  refers  to  the  attorneys, 
politicians,  preachers  and  judges  that  are  mentioned 
in  the  preceding  paragraph? 
A. — Exactly. 

Q. — Doesn't  it?   And  no  exception  is  made  in  that 
book?  ^       ^!i 

A. — I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — So  that  as  far  as  the  membership  is  concern- 
ed, and  so  far  as  that  book  is  to  be  believed,  it  was  to 
be  taken  as  making  a  charge  that  all  judges,  all 
preachers,  all  politicians,  all  public  officials  were  a 
"kept  crew"  of  the  capitalists? 
A. — Not  at  all. 

Now  St.  John  knew  as  well  as  I  knew  and  as  well 
as  you  do,  that  there  are  honest  judges;  we  have  met' 
up  with  them. 

Q. — Why  didn't  you  say  that?  Why  didn't  you 
have  the  book  say  that? 

A. — Well,  I  didn't  write  the  book. 
Q. — You  certainly  did. 

A. — I  don't  know  that  I  would  have  put  it  any 
different  if  I  had. 

Q. — You  certainly  did,  long  after  St.  John  left  the 
organization. 
A.— Yes? 

Q. — And  you  became  the  High  Mogul. 
A. — High  Mogul?     All  right. 
Q. — "This  kept  crew  is  well   paid,   entrenched 
and  armed,  and  while  it  hides  under  the  silk  skirts 
of  Mesdames  Law  and  Order,  is  as  desperate  a  crew 
as  ever  scuttled  a  ship  or  croaked  a  man." 

Now  that  sort  of  statement  has  been  circulated 
among  your  membership  by  the  hundreds  of  thou- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  135 

sands  since  1910  or  even  before  that,  isn't  that  so? 

A. — Yes,  that  pamphlet  has  been  widely  circulat- 
ed. 

Q. — The  book  has  been  revised  since  St.  John 
became  a  capitalist,  hasn't  it? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  know  what  you  mean  by  St. 
John  becoming  a  capitalist.  He  has  not  quite  obtain- 
ed that  position  in  life  yet. 

Q.— He  has  not? 

A. — No,  not  yet. 

Q. — He  is  just  struggling  to  that  end? 

A. — That  is  all. 

Q. — When  was  that  book  last  revised? 

A. — I  think  there  was  some  changes  made  in  it 
bringing  it  down  to,  oh,  probably  1916,  showing  the 
changes  in  the  form  of  organization.  Previous  to 
1916  there  were  propaganda  leagues,  and  mixed 
locals. 

Q. — Those  clauses  never  have  been  eliminated, 
have  they? 

A. — I  think  so,  in  the  later  edition. 

Q. — Let  me  have  the  1916  edition. 

A. — Which  clauses  do  you  mean  now? 

Q. — The  clauses  I  just  read. 

A. — Oh,  no,  not  those  features. 

Q._Yes. 

A. — I  had  reference  to  the  clauses  about  the  or- 
ganization. 

Q. — When  was  Grover  Perry's  book  written  and 
started  out  on  its  trip  around  among  the  membership 
of  the  organization  ? 

A. — Why,  I  think  that  was  perhaps  written  about 
the  same  time. 

Q.— 1910? 

A. — 1911  or  '12,  somewhere  along  there. 

Q.— One  of  the— 

A. — Perry  could  answer  that  and  St.  John  can 
give  you  something  definite  about  the  date. 

Q.^Well,  I  want  it  from  the  highest  source  I  can 
get  it  from. 


136  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — This  is  not  the  highest  source ;  you  will  have 
to  ask  the  membership. 

Q. — Well,  let  me  take  whatever  information  you 
have  on  it  then;  about  the  same  time,  it  has  been 
circulated  and  sold  to  the  members,  used  for  proselyt- 
ing ever  since  that  time? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — I  note  this  statement  in  it:  **The  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World  is  an  international  move- 
ment," Now  that  idea,  ''international"  was  used  in  a 
great  deal  of  the  literature,  so  as  to  do  away  with  the 
idea  that  there  was  anything  peculiar,  national,  or 
that  it  was  in  any  way  connected  with  or  related  to 
anything  in  our  country  alone.  Wasn't  that  the  pur- 
pose of  it? 

A.— Well,  let's  see. 

Q. — Well,  was  it  the  purpose  or  not? 

A. — There  are  many  international  unions  in  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Q. — You  are  not  answering. 

A. — I  understand,  but  I  don't  want  you  to  get 
mixed  up  in  this. 

Q. — I  think  I  have  it  right. 

A. — The  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World — 

Q. — I  want  to  know  if  that  is  what  was  meant  by 
the  word,  "international"  here,  to  give  the  member- 
ship the  idea  that  they  belonged  to  something  that 
was  not  connected  with  the  soil  or  with  the  institu- 
tions or  anything  in  this  country?  That  can  be  an- 
swered yes  or  no. 

A. — No,  it  cannot.  Now  the  Industrial  Workers 
of  the  World  is  very  definitely  associated  and  con- 
nected with  the  soil  and  institutions  and  industries 
of  this  country,  as  well  as  of  other  countries. 

Q. — The  organization  itself,  it  was  contemplated 
that  it  was  to  be  of  an  international  character? 

A. — Certainly,  world-wide. 

Q. — ''The  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  is  an 
international  movement,  not  merely  an  American 
movement.  We  are  patriotic  for  our  class."  Now  that 
meant  patriotic  for  nobody  else,  didn't  it? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  137 

A. — It  meant  "patriotic"  for  the  working  class. 

Q. — And  the  working  class  alone  ? 

A. — Alone,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — Yes.  "We  realize  that  as  workers  we  have 
no  country."  Now,  let's  see  that  statement,  that  sen- 
tence has  gone  unchallenged,  has  it  not,  in  the  organ- 
ization from  the  time  that  Perry's  book  went  out — 
"We  realize  that  as  workers  we  have  no  country." 
Has  that  ever  been  challenged  that  you  know  of? 

A.- — No,  never  has. 

Q. — "The  flags  and  symbols  that  once  meant 
great  things  to  us  have  been  seized  by  our  employers. 
To-day  they  mean  naught  to  us  but  oppression  and 
tyranny."  "Naught  to  us."  Now  that  has  never  been 
challenged  either,  has  it? 

A.— No. 

Q. —  (Continued)  by  any  member  of  the  organiza- 
tion you  know  of? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Much  less  by  you,  has  it? 

A. — No.  I  never  challenged  it. 

Q. — "That  flags  and  symbols  that  once  meant 
great  things  to  us  have  been  seized  by  our  employ- 
ers." Was  that  the  same  idea  you  had  in  mind  the 
other  day,  when  in  answer  to  one  of  counsel's  (ques- 
tions with  reference  to  this  desecrated  flag  that  was 
introduced  in  evidence  here,  you  said  at  that  time  you 
did  think  something  of  the  American  flag. 

A. — And  do  now. 

Q.— Well,  didn't  you  say  that? 

A.— Didn't  I  add  that? 

Q. — Didn't  you  say  that? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  I  did.  Now  there  is  some  explana- 
tion that  I  want  to  make  in  connection  with  this  flag. 
There  have  been  many  demonstrations  about  the  flag, 
and  when  I  answer  you  yes  or  no,  I  also  want  to  ex- 
plain later,  unless  you  will  allow  me  to  explain  now. 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  want  to  cut  you  off  with  any 
explanation  if  it  is  apropos. 

A. — Well,  now  about  the  flag,  here  was  at  one 
time  a  remarkable  flag  demonstration  in  the  city  of 


138  TESTIMONY  OF 

Lawrence,  when  all  of  the  business  men,  all  of  the 
preachers,  priests  and  other  preachers  alike,  with 
twelve  thousand  of  the  school  children,  marched  the 
streets  of  Lawrence  in  the  slush  and  mud  to  pay  rev- 
erence, to  pay  tribute,  if  you  will,  or  respect,  to  the 
American  flag. 

They  had  taken  it  that  the  Industrial  Workers  of 
the  World  were  opposed  to  the  flag,  and  they  march- 
ed with  flags  on  their  breasts  and  flags  afl_oat,  under 
a  banner  that  streamed  across  the  street,  and  on  one 
side  of  the  banner  was  "The  Star  and  Stripes  for- 
ever," and  on  the  other  side  the  inscription  said : 
"The  red  flag,  never",  and  a  further  inscription  that 
there  was  no  room  in  Massachusetts  for  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World. 

Now  these  would-be  patriots  who  floated  the 
Stars  and  Stripes  that  day  seemed  to  be  overlooking 
the  fact  that  the  red  flag  of  which  they  were  saying 
"never",  and  "down  with  it",  was  at  one  time  the 
symbol  of  this  country  under  which  the  battles  of 
White  Plains  were  fought,  but  these  fellows,  late- 
comers, probably  did  not  seem  to  know  that  that  was 
one  of  the  flags  of  this  nation.  They  also  overlooked 
the  fact  that  we  one  time  had  a  flag — 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  I  am  going  to  interrupt 
you;  you  are  making  an  argument  here  that  is  not 
responsive  to  anything  I  have  asked  you. 

A. — Well,  I  want  to  tell  you  about  this  flag. 

Q. — Well,  the  whole  point  to  it,  is  it  not,  that  you 
think  in  this  case,  this  instance  you  speak  of,  that 
the  American  Flag  has  been  abused  by  somebody? 

A. — Why,  it  most  certainly  was  on  that  occasion, 
because  it  was  not  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  intended. 

Q. — Well,  what  has  that  got  to  do  with  the  pur- 
pose I  have  asked  you  about?    I  want  to  proceed. 

A. — Here  is  what  it  has  to  do :  Grover  Perry  there 
says  that  the  flag  is  not  now  what  it  used  to  be. 

Q._Yes? 

A. — Well,  that  is  what  I  say,  in  this  demonstra- 
tion in  Lawrence — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  ia9 

Q.— That  was  in  1910? 

A. — Yes.  This  is  what  I  say  about  the  demon- 
stration in  Lawrence. 

Q._Yes. 

A. — But  there  was  another  flag  demonstration  in 
Paterson. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  I  think  we  can  get  at  it  this 
way — 

A. — All  right. 

Q. — If  it  is  these  isolated  and  incidental  instances 
of  abuses  of  the  flag  you  people  have  referred  to,  why 
didn't  you  say  so? 

A. — We  have  said  so. 

Q. — Where  have  you  said  so  in  this  literature? 

A. — Let  me  tell  you  about  this  Lawrence  and 
Patterson  business,  maybe  it  will  elucidate  the  situa- 
tion somewhat.  The  employers  in  Paterson  attempt- 
ed to  do  the  same  thing  as  they  did  in  Lawrence,  but 
in  Paterson  it  so  happens  that  the  workers,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,,  weave 
nearly  all  the  American  flags  in  the  United  States. 

Now,  they  had  on  the  entrance  to  the  factory 
doors  flags  hung  up,  on  which  every  worker  as  he 
came  in  was  compelled  to  put  his  hand  and  say  some 
words;  I  have  just  forgotten  what  they  were,  but  in 
this  instance  the  strikers  themselves  put  on  a  flag, 
under  the  inscriptions  were,  ''We  weave  the  flag,  we 
starve  under  the  flag,  we  work  under  the  flag,  we 
wear  the  flag,  but  we  are  damned  if  we  will  scab 
under  the  flag." 

Well,  they  didn't  make  the  demonstration  work 
there  against  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World, 
because  we  all  wore  the  flag  on  that  occasion,  and 
they  didn't. 

Q. — Now  you  have  suggested  here  something 
about  the  Socialist  program  and  the  state.  I  want  to 
ask  you  about  this  clause  in  Abner  E. .  Woodruff 's 
''Advancing  Proletariat."  When  was  that  written  and 
started  out? 

A.— I  think  in  1916. 


140  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— 1916? 
A.— Yes. 

Q. — It  is  one  of  the — 

A.— Late  in  1915. 

Q. — One  of  the  pamphlets  of  the  organization? 

A. — Yes,  published  first  in  Cleveland. 

Q. — There  is  this  statement  in  it:  "Bureaucratic 
administration  would  necessarily  result  in  the  'So- 
cialist state' — democratic  participation  and  control 
by  the  people  would  be  set  aside — a  new  slavery 
would  ensue,  for  bureaucrats  are  inherently  despotic. 
Further — the  state  (the  primary  function  of  which 
has  always  been  to  protect  private  property)  as  an 
entity  set  over  and  above  the  people,  has  so  long  rep- 
resented the  proletarian  idea  of  despotism,  that  any 
scheme  retaining  it  must  surely  meet  with  proletarian 
opposition." 

Now  you  remember  that  clause,  do  you,  in  Abner 
Woodruff's  book? 

A. — Well,  I  think  that  I  recall  that  book. 

Q.-«-And  the  proletarian  position  means  the  I. 
W.  W.  position,  doesn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  the  I.  W.  W.  is  a  proletarian  organiza- 
tion. 

Q. — A  proletarian  movement? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  the  idea  that  is  advanced  there  that  the 
state,  whether  socialistic  or  otherwise,  has  been  so 
long  associated  with  oppression  in  the  minds  of  the 
I.  W.  W.,  that  nothing  short  of  complete  abolition  of 
it  would  satisfy  them? 

A. — Well,  it  is  not  so  much  the  abolition  of  the 
state  as  the  establishment  of  an  industrial  democracy. 

Q. — Yes.  But  that,  of  course,  would  destroy  the 
state  ? 

A. — Naturally,  the  state  is  going  to  slough  off. 

Q. — Oh,  yes,  like  the  vermiform  appendix. 

A. — Perhaps  so. 

Q. — "All  the  activities" — I  am  reading  from  the 
same  book  now,  "all  the  activities  of  the  proletariat 
in  furthering  its  program  for  a  new  society,  must  ne- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  141 

cessarily  be  revolutionary  and  beyond  the  law." 
''Beyond  the  law"  means  in  defiance  of  the  law, 
doesn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  it  would. 

Q — ^'Therefore  the  Socialist  politician's  'legal  re- 
volution' "  —  that  is  one  that  is  within  the  law  — 
"legal  revolution  idea  is  regarded  as  absurd  by  the 
proletariat."  Now  there  is  not  any  two  ways  of  tak- 
ing that,  is  there  ? 

A.— No. 

Q. — That  is  just  what  it  means  and  that  is  one  of 
the  means  of  propaganda  of  the  I.  W.  W.,  and  has 
been  ever  since  this  book  was  written? 

A. — Well,  you  recall  that  I  cited — 

Q. — Just  answer  that. 

A. — All  right. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  That  is  two  questions. 
There  is  not  any  question  about  what  it  means,  is 
there  ? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Now  how  many  members, 
approximately,  were  there  of  the  I.  W.  W.  on  Janu- 
ary 1st,  1917? 

A. — I  didn't  recall  the  number  now.  I  could  give 
it  there  if  I  had  my  report. 

Q. — Couldn't  you  even  get  approximately? 

A. — 1917,  approximately  seventy  thousand. 

Q. — Well,  I  mean  now  of  actually  paid  up  mem- 
bers in  good  standing. 

A. — Actually  paid  up  members? 

Q. — You  think  at  the  beginning  of  1917  there 
were  seventy  thousand  members? 

A. — I  think  so. 

Q. — How  many  were  there  September  first,  1917? 

A. — I  would  say  close  to  90,000  paid  up  members. 

Q._90,000? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Paid  up  members.    Now  one  other  thing — 

A. — You  see,  you  have  the  records  up  here. 

Q. — Well,  you  have  access  to  them,  don't  you? 

A. — Well,  one  of  your  men  who  counted  them 
up,  Mr.  Howe,  I  think,  told  me  there  was  seventy 


.42  TESTIMONY  OF 

thousand.  Well,  at  that  time  the  lumber  workers 
had  not  been  transferred  and  you  have  no  record  of 
those.  You  have  no  record  of  the  Marine  Transport 
Workers.  It  would  probably  run  over  90,000,  per- 
haps 105,000. 

Q. — Well,  he  counted  them  up  and  estimated 
them,  did  he  not? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — One  other  matter  before  I  pass  to  1917.  Now, 
a  part  of  the  propaganda  of  the  I.  W.  W.  from  the 
beginning  has  been  this  thing  called  sabotage,  has  it 
not? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  the  membeitship  really 
knew  the  word  or  definition  of  sabotage  in  the  early 
beginning. 

Q. — When  did  you  adopt  sabotage  as  one  of  the 
elements  of  policy  in  the  organization? 

A. — It  probably  has  been  one  of  the  elements 
from  the  inception  of  the  organization. 

Q. — From  the  inception? 

A. — I  should  say  so. 

Q. — Well,  the  various  books  on  sabotage,  how 
long  have  they  been  circulated  among  the  member- 
ship? 

A. — Perhaps  the  earliest  one  was  printed  in  1913. 

Q. — Which  one  was  that? 

A. — Elizabeth  Gurley  Flynn's,  I  believe;  I  don't 
know  whether  Walker  Smith's  was  out  before  that, 
but  that  was  not  issued  by  the  general  organization. 

Q. — No,  but  it  circulated  among  the  member- 
ship? 

A. — Among  some  of  the  membership ;  probably 
never  has  been  seen  in  the  east  at  all. 

Q. — Well,  since  Gurley  Flynn's  book  was  out,  it 
has  been  adopted  and  circulated  and  used  among  the 
membership  just  as  widely  as  it  could  be  sold? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — The  same  way  with  Pouget's  work? 

A. — No,  Pouget's  book  had  a  very  limited  cir- 
culation.   I  purchased — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  143 

Q. — Well,  you  have  acquired  the  copyright,  have 
you  not? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  is,  you  personally,  or  the  organization? 

A. — Not  me  personally;  the  organization  owns  it. 
I  acquired  it  for  the  organization. 

Q. — Although  not  v/ritten  by  an  I.  W.  W.  it  is 
now  owned  by  the  organization? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — The  copyright;  and  sabotage  as  explained 
in  these  various  books  has  become  a  part  of  the  prop- 
aganda at  least,  of  the  organization? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Do  you  know  about  what  growth  was  made 
in  the  organization  in  1917  as  shown  from  the  re- 
ceipts for  the  initiations  and  dues? 

A. — No,  I  couldn't  tell  you  off-hand. 

Q. — ^I  will  have  to  pass  that;  I  thought  I  had  a 
memo  here.  The  membership  in  the  organization  and 
the  receipts  from  initiations  and  dues  very  appreci- 
ably and  rapidly  accelerated  after  the  declaration  of 
war  in  1917,  did  they  not? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so ;  not  particularly  after 
the  war ;  the  growth  of  the  organization — yes,  it  was 
more  rapid  after  the  war. 

Q. — Well,  let  us  put  it  back  as  far  as  the  sever- 
ance of  diplomatic  relations  between  this  country  and 
Germany,  on  February  2nd. 

A. — Well,  the  growth  of  the  organization  had 
absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  severance  of  diplo- 
matic relations,  or  the  war. 

Q. — Well,  that  is  an  argument;  I  want  the  facts. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  The  whole  question  is  an 
argument.  '     ■ 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Did  the  membership  and  did  the 
receipts  from  those  sources  increase  rapidly  and  in 
an  ascending  ratio  from  the  time  that  diplomatic  re- 
lations were  severed  up  to  September  first,  at  least? 

A. — I  would  say  they  did,  but  not  to  the  extent 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  has  increased. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  I  move  to  strike  that  last 


144  TESTIMONY  OF 

statement,  if  the  Court  please,  as  being  irresponsive 
and  argumentative. 

THE  COURT :  Strike  it  out. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Now  you  said  something  to 
counsel  as  to  how  you  would  have  gone  about  it  if 
your  real  desire  had  been  to  thwart  the  government 
in  the  way  you  are  charged  with  doing  in  this  indict- 
ment; do  you  remember  that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — How,  for  instance,  you  would  have  got  in 
touch  with  Rowan  and  had  a  lumber  strike ;  in  touch 
with  Perry  and  had  a  strike  in  the  mines,  where 
copper  and  lead  was  produced;  with  Forrest  Ed- 
wards, and  had  a  strike  in  the  harvest  fields;  with 
Nef  and  Doree,  and  had  a  strike  among  the  marine 
transport  workers. 

A. — Doree  was  secretary  of  the  Textile  workers. 

Q. — Well,  Nef  in  the  Transport  Workers  and 
Doree  in  the  Textile  Workers. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  that  you  would  have  had  the  foreign 
newspapers  disseminate  information  and  propa- 
ganda along  that  line? 

A. — Naturally. 

Q. — Also  the  English  papers? 

A. — Naturally. 

Q. — Do  you  think  you  could  have  gotten  the  for- 
eign newspapers  to  have  said  anything  stronger  than 
they  did  say? 

A. — About  what? 

Q. — General  strike. 

A. — Against  war? 

Q. — General  strike. 

A. — Against  the  war? 

Q. — Well,  against  the  war,  yes. 

A. — I  have  not  heard  anything  read  here  about 
tying  up  the  government  or  against  the  war  in  the 
foreign  newspapers. 

Q. — Have  you  heard  something  read  here  about 
a  general  strike  to  release  men  from  jail? 

A.— Yes,  I  did. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  145 

Q. — Yes.  General  strike  in  case  of  conscription? 

A.— No. 

Q. — You  haven't  heard  anything  about  that? 

A.— No. 

Q.' — Did  you  hear  read  the  minutes  of  the  con- 
vention— 

A. — You  refer  to  the  Sandpoint? 

Q. — The  convention  that  organized  Number  500? 

A. — Yes,  I  heard  that. 

Q. — You  heard  that  read? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — What  you  v^ere  going  to  do,  what  they  pro- 
posed to  do  out  there  in  case  conscription  passed? 

A. — I  don't  think  I  heard  that  from  a  newspaper; 
I  heard  it  from  the  minutes. 

Q. — Well,  I  will  get  at  that  feature  of  it. 
.   A.— All  right. 

Q. — Let's  find  out  what  the  results  are  first: 
There  was  a  strike  to  your  knowledge,  called  some 
time  in  June,  that  tied  up  all  of  the  lumber  camps 
on  the  east  side  of  the  Cascade  Mountains,  in  the 
northwestern  part  of  this  country,  wasn't  there  ? 

A. — Was  that  lumber  strike  called  in  June  or 
July? 

Q. — June,  the  Rowan  strike. 

A. — Is  that  the  one  that  Rowan  called? 

Q. — Yes,  don't  you  know  it? 

A. — I  believe  I  had  heard  something  about  that. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  That  is  another  strike. 

A. — That  is  another  strike. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  That  is  August  11th. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Oh,  no,  I  know  what  I  am  talk- 
ing about  and  so  does  Haywood. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  You  and  the  witness  are 
not  talking  about  the  same  thing. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  I  am  talking  about  the 
strike  that  tied  up  all  of  the  lumber  camps  of  the  east 
side  of  the  Cascade  Mountains. 

A. — Well,  that  occurred  on  July  12th,  didn't  it? 

Q._What? 

A.— 13th  and  14th. 


146  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Let's  see,  aren't  you  confused,  or,  I  won't 
say  you  are  attempting  to  mislead,  but  isn't  that  July 
strike  the  one  that  occurred  in  the  long  log  country 
on  the  west  side? 

A. — Well,  that  occurred  in  all  of  the  lumber  dis- 
trict; there  was  a  strike  on  the  east  side,  that  is  on 
the  Fortine. 

Q.— You  have  listened  to  the  testimony  here  that 
it  was  called  on  June  12th. 

A. — That  Fortine  strike  was  called  earlier,  yes. 

Q. — And  that  it  spread  immediately  all  over  the 
east  side  of  the  Cascade  Mountains,  that  is,  the  tim- 
ber country,  in  the  northwest,  east  of  the  Cascade 
Mountains? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Then  as  soon  as  that  became  a  success  it  was 
followed  at  once,  on  July  14th  or  15th,  with  a  similar 
strike  on  the  west  side?    Isn't  that  so? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  in  the  grip  of  those  two  strikes,  the 
entire  lumber  industry  of  the  northwest  of  this  coun- 
try, where  the  large  proportion  of  the  lumber  is  pro- 
duced, was  paralyzed,  the  industry  itself,  isn't  that 
so? 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — Now,  about  the  same  time  that  the  move- 
ment went  on  there,  to  tie  up  those  lumber  camps, 
was  there  not  a  movement  down  in  the  southwest 
part  of  this  country,  in  the  copper  camps? 

A. — Yes,  but  would  you  permit  me  here  to  say — 

Q. — Well,  I  want  to  get  at  it  now  in  my  own  way. 

A. — I  know. 

Q. — And  have  you  explain  later. 

A. — All  right,  just  make  a  note  of  that,  Mr.  Van- 
derveer,  I  want  to  explain  who  is  responsible  for  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  It  is  not  a  matter  of  getting 
at  it  in  a  different  way,  it  is  a  matter  of  getting  at  the 
facts. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— On  June  23rd,  down  in 
Arizona,  three  days  after,  I  said  June  12th,  that  the 
strike   was  called   up   there   in  Washington, — it  is 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  147 

June  20th,  as  shown  by  your  record, — on  June  20th 
down  in  the  southwest  part  of  the  country  at  Bisbee, 
Arizona,  there  was  a  convention  held ;  do  you  remem- 
ber that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  do  you  remember  that  the  records 
show — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  That  is  not  correct;  let  us 
get  the  dates. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  And  do  you  remember  that  the 
records  show  that  at  that  convention  a  communica- 
tion was  read  from  the  lumber  end  of  it,  saying  that 
they  had  gone  on  strike"  for  the  purpose, — against 
conscription,  and  asking  them  if  they  should  go  on 
strike  down  there  in  sympathy. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  There  is  not  a  syllable  of 
truth  in  the  question,  if  the  Court  please. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  wish  that  counsel  would  keep 
out  of  this. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  In  the  first  place  the  Bisbee 
convention  was  not  on  June  23rd ;  it  was  not  after  the 
June  20th  strike,  which  could  not  have  happened, — 
it  could  not — it  did  not  happen,  and  it  is  created  en- 
tirely in  his  own  imagination,  and  I  cannot  stand  here 
and  submit  to  the  putting  of  questions  which  have  no 
foundation  in  the  record  in  this  case.  The  Bisbee  con- 
ference occurred  long  before  June  20th. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  am  talking  about  this  Bisbee 
convention. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Yes. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  I  do  not  know  if  "convention''  is 
the  right  name. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  was  not  on  June  23rd. 
There  was  not  anything  written  on  June  20th. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  In  the  first  place,  this  is  im- 
proper for  counsel  to  interfere  here  in  my  examina- 
tion of  this  witness  and  suggest  that  to  the  witness. 

THE  COURT:  Go  ahead. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Now,  on  June  23rd,  there 
was  a  meeting  down  there,  you  have  heard  the 
minute  read,  haven't  you?    You  can  call  it  a  conven- 


148  TESTIMONY  OF 

tion,  or  what  not? 

A. — Wasn't  it  on  June  15th. 

MR.  NEBEKER:    No;  it  was  June  23rd. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  let's  get  the  record 
and  see. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  You  remember  when  Embree 
was  on  the  stand,  don't  you? 

A. — Yes,  I  do. 

Q. — And  I  called  attention  to  the  minutes  of  that 
meeting  on  June  23rd? 

A. — I  don't  think  it  was  on  June  23rd. 

Q. — Well,  it  matters  not;  let's  say  it  was  some- 
time in  June,  was  it  not? 

A.— All  right. 

Q. — It  was  after  the  strike  had  been  started  up 
in  the  lumber  region? 

A. — In  Eastern  Washington? 

Q. — Yes,  in  the  eastern  part  and  it  was  a  com- 
munication to  the  I.  W.  W.'s  down  there,  to  ascertain 
whether  they  would  go  on  a  strike  in  the  mines  for 
the  same  purpose  and  effects  that  the  lumber  people 
had  gone  on  strike  in  the  Northwest? 

A. — And  do  you  remember  what  Perry  and  Em- 
bree and  Little  said  at  that  conference  ? 

Q. — Let  me  ask  you  about  these  minutes.  You 
remember  they  showed  that  this  convention — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  think  there  is  not  a  thing 
in  the  record  to  sustain  that  statement. 

THE  COURT:  Gentlemen,  you  will  disregard  the 
assertion  of  counsel  for  the  defendants  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  record  to  sustain  the  statement.  Pro- 
ceed with  the  examination. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Why,  your  Honor  ?  Why 
should  they  disregard  a  statement  of  mine  ? 

THE  COURT:  Because  it  is  an  improper  assertion 
of  that  kind  containing  a  fact. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Every  question  of  counsel 
implies  an  assertion  of  fact  which  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  facts. 

THE  COURT:  Gentlemen,  you  will  disregard  this 
statement  of  counsel  respecting  a  matter  of  fact.  Pay 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  149 

no  attention  to  it.  Now,  proceed  with  your  examina- 
tion. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  am  merely  requesting 
that  counsel  adjust  himself — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Do  you  remember  the  minutes 
of  the  meetings  that  Embree  testified  about? 

A. — I  heard  the  testimony  here ;  not  all  of  it;  you 
cannot  hear  all  of  the  testimony.  As  loud  as  I  am 
speaking  now,  these  men  back  here  cannot  hear  me. 

Q. — I  suppose.  Did  you  hear  that  part  of  it  that 
spoke  of  receiving  a  communication  from  Seattle  ? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Saying  that  they  were  on  strike,  or  asking, 
rather  if  in  the  mines  they  would  go  on  strike  in 
sympathy  against  conscription? 

A. — No;  I  did  not  hear,  ''against  conscription;" 
I  heard  them  ask  if  they  would  go  on  sympathetic — 

Q. — Well,  I  will  have  to  get  that  letter  for  you? 

A. — Yes,  I  would  like  to  see  that. 

Q. — And  at  that  meeting  a  vote  was  taken  in 
favor  of  going  on  strike  for  the  same  purpose  as  the 
Seattle  branches  were  on  strike.  Do  you  remember 
that? 

A. — At  the  Bisbee  conference? 

Q. — No;  at  this  meeting  that  Embree  testified 
about. 

A. — Well,  wasn't  that  the  Bisbee  conference  ? 

Q. — No.  No,  that  is  another  meeting. 

A. — Well,  I  don't  recall  anything  about  this  other 
meeting  that  you  are  speaking  of. 

Q. — Anyhow  the  strikes  down  in  Arizona — 

A. — Where  else  could  Embree  be  except  Bisbee. 

Q. — He  was  at  Bisbee.  He  was — it  was  the  Bis- 
bee branch  took  action  on  this  matter,  the  same  as 
at  Sandpoint,  it  was  the  Sandpoint  branch  that  first 
started  the  ball  rolling. 

A. — I  see. 

Q. — You  understand? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Following  that  action,  one  strike  after  an- 
other was  called  in  Arizona  until  practically  all  of 


150  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  mines  there  were  closed  down  by  the  I.  W.  W/s? 

A. — Following  the  action  of  the  branch? 

Q._Yes. 

A. — The  branch  could  not  initiate  a  strike. 

Q. — I  understand,  but  following,  in  time. 

A. — It  is  true  that  there  were  strikes  in  Arizona — 

Q.— Yes. 

A. —  (Continuing)  following  the  date  you  give? 

Q. — Yes,  sir. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — So  that  by  that  time  you  had  the  lumber  tied 
up,  and  you  had  the  copper  mines  tied  up  in  a  field 
that  produced  a  large  proportion  of  what  the  govern- 
ment needed  for  munitions,  is  that  true? 

A. — It  is  true  that  there  VN^ere  strikes  in  Arizona. 

Q. — Yes,  sir. 

A.— And  true  that  the  lumber  strike  was  on  in  the 
west. 

Q. — Now,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  this,  and 
see  if  this  is  not  the  next  step  you  had  in  mind  in  this 
program,  where  you  were  acting  through  your  Lieu- 
tenants: Do  you  remember  the  strike  that  was  called 
in  that  circular  of  August  20th  signed  by  Rowan? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  was  a  strike  call  or  contemplated  that 
it  would  be  called  among  the  agricultural  workers 
of  the  Northwest,  was  it  not? 

A.— I  think  so,  yes. 

Q. — It  was  called  to  take  effect  rather,  on  August 
20th,  circulars  went  out  about  August  10th  or  12th, 
do  you  remember  that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  particular  strike  did  not  go  into  effect, 
did  it? 

A. — August  20th? 

Q.— August  20th? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  it  did. 

Q. — Rowan,  and  the  men  upon  whom  that  strike 
devolved  out  there  were  arrested  and  put  under  mil- 
itary arrest  on  the  19th  of  August,  weren't  they? 

A. — Now,  then — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  151 

Q. — Were  they? 

A. — Now,  just  let  me  get  this  thing  straight.  I 
do  not  want  to  say  yes  or  no  to  things  I  do  not  know 
anything  about. 

Q. — Were  they  put  under  arrest;  just  let  me  get 
this  thing  straight. 

A. — Certainly  they  were. 

Q.— On  August  19th? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — So  that  strike  did  not  go  into  effect,  but  it 
was  contemplated  and  called,  wasn't  it? 

A. — And  you  think  that  a  strike  could  be  con- 
templated and  called  by  Jim  Rowan,  and  that  his 
going  to  jail  would  stop  it? 

Q. — Of  course,  that  is  a  question  that  I  could 
easily  answer,  but  it  would  be  improper  for  me  to 
answer  this  question  at  this  time.  What  I  am  trying 
to  find  out:  Jim  Rowan  was  at  the  head  of  one  of  the 
big  organizations. 

A. — He  was  secretary  treasurer  of  the  lumber 
workers. 

Q. — Just  how  he  got  the  information,  and  why 
he  acted  may  not  be  entirely  disclosed  by  correspond- 
ence? That  is  so,  isn't  it?  It  would  not  necessarily 
be  in  writing. 

A. — If  you  mean  to  intimate — 

Q. — It  would  not  necessarily  by  in  writing? 

A. — If  you  mean  to  intimate  that  there  was  any 
communication  sent  from  the  General  Office  to  Jim 
Rowan  urging  this  strike,  you  are  very,  very  much 
mistaken. 

Q. — I  am  mistaken? 

A. — Yes,  sir;  you  are  indeed. 

Q. — Well,  it  would  not  be  beyond  the  bounds  of 
possibility  that  you  would  send  your  Ambassador, 
Brazier,  out  there  to — and  let  him  start  the  move- 
ment in  that  way. 

A. — Well,  that  is  possible,  of  course. 

Q. — It  would  be  possible? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  were  sometimes  rather  careful  about 


152  TESTIMONY  OF 

what  you  put  in  writing,  weren't  you? 

A. — I  am  always  careful,  yes. 

Q. — And  said  so? 

A. — Always  careful  of  what  I  put  in  writing. 

Q. — Yes.  And  said  so.  Now  wasn't  it  contemplat- 
ed, down  into  the  lumber  and  mines,  down  in  the 
southwest,  and  it  got  up  to  the  Agricultural  Work- 
ers of  the  Northwest,  was  it  not  contemplated  that 
the  next  place  you  would  attack  would  be  the  mines 
in  Michigan  on  the  Gogebic  Range? 

A. — Well,  we  had  very  little  organization  in 
Michigan,  very,  very  little. 

Q. — Well,  I  know,  but  little  or  much,  wasn't  it  a 
fact  that  you  intended  to  do  that? 

A.— No. 

Q. — And  that  you  personally  contemplated  it? 

A. — No,  the  only  thought,  the  only  reference  that 
I  ever  had  or  made  to  the  Gogebic  Range  was  when 
I  sent  the  telegram  to  President  Wilson  about  the 
deported  men  from  Bisbee.  . 

Q. — Well,  now,  did  you  not  write  Charles  Jacob- 
son  on  the  26th  day  of  July,  1917,  and  say:  **The 
miners  of  Arizona  and  Butte,  Montana,  are  asking 
what  the  Minnesota  miners  are  going  to  do,  to  assist 
them  in  winning  the  strike."  That  is  a  suggestion  as  to 
Minnesota? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  were  now  making  a  preliminary  inquiry 
to  see  to  what  extent  you  could  extend  the  strike  out 
in  that  country,  weren't  you? 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — That  is  where  you  wrote  Jacobson:  "I  see 
where  the  miners  of  the  Gogebic" — what  is  that? 

A. — Gogebic. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Gogebic. 

MR.  NEBEKER:    Gogebic,  counsel  says. 

" — in  Michigan  are  out.  Will  it  be  possible  to 
make  it  a  general  strike  of  the  miners  for  the  6 
hour  day  and  $6  a  day."  Do  you  remember  writing 
that? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  153 

A. — Well,  you  have  the  letter  here;  I  certainly 
wrote  it. 

Q. — This  was  to  Charley  Jacobson,  one  of  the  de- 
fendants here  ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  in  that  one  letter  the  suggestion  is  made 
to  feel  out  the  situation  and  see  whether  you  could 
get  the  Minnesota  mines  tied  up,  and  also  a  sugges- 
tion to  see  what  could  be  done  in  the  same  direction 
in  the  Michigan  mines? 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — That  is  July  27th,  1917.  Now,  that  would 
have  tied  up,  if  that  plan  had  gone  through,  prac- 
tically the  basic. materials  of  this  whole  country  that 
are  used  in  the  manufacture  of  munitions,  would  it 
not? 

A. — Practically  the  iron,  copper  and  lumber. 

Q. — Yes,  sir.  But  I  want  to  read  further  from  this 
same  letter:  ''Attorney  Fred  H.  Moore  briefly  inform- 
ed me  of  what  you  were  coming  to  Chicago  for."  Do 
you  remember  that  now? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  that.  I  remember  that 
Jacobson  was  coming  to  Chicago. 

Q. — ''As  you  did  not  come,  I  have  been  expecting 
action  on  the  part  of  the  miners  ever  since." 

Now,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  Fred  Moore  told  you  that 
Charley  Jacobson  was  coming  down  here  for  the 
purpose  of  communicating  with  you  about  calling 
that  strike  and  getting  those  men  out  there  on  strike 
in  Minnesota  and  that  inasmuch  as  he  had  not  come, 
you  were  giving  him  to  understand  that  you  person- 
ally were  expecting  action  there? 

A. — Well,  he  would  not  necessarily  come  to  see 
me. 

Q. — Oh,  well,  I  understand.  Isn't  that  the  real 
meaning  of  that  letter? 

A. — No,  I  don't  just  recall  what  his  coming  was 
about. 

Q. — Of  course,  your  statement  has  been,  and 
your  contention  has  been  right  along,  that  this  was 
simply  a  matter  of  demands,  working  conditions,  and 


154  TESTIMONY  OF 

wages  and  things  of  that  kmd,  just  a  spontaneous 
uprising  among  the  working  men,  that  is  what  you 
say  is  the  fact,  is  it? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes. 

Q. — ^Do  you  remember  of  receiving  a  letter  from 
Kimball,  you  know  who  Kimball  is  down  there  in 
Arizona? 

A. — One  of  the  defendants,  A.  D.  Kimball. 

Q. — He  was  one  of  the  defendants? 

A. — He  is  now. 

Q. — He  is  now  but  not  on  trial ;  do  you  remember 
him? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — He  was  what?    A  branch  secretary? 

A. — I  don't  recall;  I  don't  know  just  what  Kim- 
ball's capacity  was  or  whether  he  was  an  officer  at 
all  or  not? 

Q. — Well,  he  was  a  very  active  man  down  there 
during  the  strike,  wasn't  he  ? 

A. — Well,  he  had  little  or  any  communication 
with  headquarters ;  I  don't  remember  ever  receiving 
a  letter  from  him. 

Q. — Well,  let's  see  if  you  remember  this? 

A. — Maybe  I  will. 

Q. — Wherein  he  said,  speaking  of  the  strikes  in 
Arizona:  ''This  is  a  Solidarity  strike" — a  solidarity 
strike — ''and  we  must  concentrate  on  that  phase  of 
it;  the  demands  made  are  wholly  secondary."  Do 
you  remember  receiving  that  from  Kimball  ? 

A.— No,  I  don't  recall  receiving  that  letter. 

Q. — Now,  do  you  remember  of  writing  Kimball? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  of  writing  him. 

Q. — On  July  31,  1917.  You  don't  remember 
that? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q. — In  which  you  addressed  him:  "A.  D.  Kim- 
ball, Civilian  Camp,  Columbus,  New  Mexico,  Fellow 
Worker: 

"In  regard  to  what  action  is  being  done  to  bring 
other  mining  sections  in  line." 

A. — What  is  the  date  of  his  letter  to  me? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  155 

Q. — I  don't  have  the  date  on  here ;  I  will  have  to 
get  it  for  you. 

A.— All  right. 

Q.— July  25th.    And  this  is  the  31st. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  in  that  letter,  I  did  not  take  time  to  read 
it  all,  I  called  your  attention  to  just  one  sentence  of 
it,  but  there  was  an  inquiry  in  that  letter  from  Kim- 
ball to  you  as  to  what  they  were  doing  in  other  parts 
of  the  country  to  extend  this  strike.  Do  you  remxem- 
ber  that?    And  you  answered  him  thus,  did  you  not: 

''In  regard  to  what  action  is  being  taken  to  bring 
other  mining  sections  into  line,  will  say  that  every 
effort  is  being  made  to  swing  Minnesota  and  Mich- 
igan in  line."  Now,  that  is  true,  is  it  not? 

A. — That  is  true  as  far  as  those  deportees  were 
concerned. 

Q. — And  you  were  making  every  effort  at  that 
time  to  swing  them  into  line,  were  you? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — This  is  July  31st:  "Minnesota  and  Michigan." 
Now,  also  ''The  Gogebic  Range  in  Michigan  is  al- 
ready on  strike  and  Minnesota  is  preparing  for  the 
struggle."  That  was  true,  wasn't  it,  on  this  date? 

A. — There  was  a  little  strike  up  in  Gogebic,  yes. 

Q. — Now,  they  were  preparing  for  the  struggle, 
were  they? 

A. — And  some  efforts  were  being  made  in  Min- 
nesota. 

Q. — They  were  preparing  for  the  struggle? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — "Strikes  are  also  threatened  in  the  harvest 
fields."   That  was  so,  was  it? 

A. — South  Dakota. 

Q.— South  Dakota? 

A. — Around  Aberdeen. 

Q. — Around  Aberdeen  only?  You  didn't  say  that, 
did  you? 

A. — No.  I  don't  remember  that  letter. 


156  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Well,  I  will  have  to  get — 

A. — I  want  to  see  the  letter  myself. 

Q. — Let  me  have  it,  Mr.  Vanderveer. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  haven't  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  It  is  quite  a  lengthy  letter  here, 
you  will  recognize  it,  I  think  July  31,  1917,  you  will 
see  the  language  I  quoted  is  on  the  second  page  of 
the  letter.  There  is  not  any  doubt  about  it  now,  is 
there,  about  your  writing  that  letter?  Any  doubt 
about  it? 

A. — About  my  writing  this  letter? 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — I  didn't  write  it. 

Q._Dictate  it? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q.— Well,  who  did? 

A. — Do  I  have  to  tell  you  who  did? 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — Dick  Brazier. 

Q. — Did  he  write  it  over  his  signature? 

A. — No,  he  wrote  it  over  mine. 

Q. — Well,  did  you  see  it  before  it  was  sent  out? 

A. — That  is,  that  I  am  not  certain  of. 

Q. — Well,  what  is  your  best  judgment? 

A. — Well,  I  didn't  write  it,  I  just  know  that  I 
didn't  write  it. 

Q. — You  mean  to  say  that  your  best  judgment  is 
you  did  not  write  it? 

A. — I  know  I  didn't. 

Q. — I  mean  read  it  before  it  went  out? 

A. — I  am  not  certain  of  that.  I  would  want  to 
read  it  over  then  I  would  refresh  my  memory  and 
know  what  it  is. 

Q. — Well,  it  was  not  the  practice  for  Dick  Brazier 
to  write  letters  and  sign  your  name  on  important 
matters  of  that  kind,  was  it? 

A. — He  wrote  letters  for  me  any  signed  my  name. 

Q. — Did  he  write  it  right  here  in  Headquarters? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Were  you  there  at  the  time? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  157 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  is  Brazier,  the  defendant  here? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Member  of  the  General  Executive  Board? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.^JSTow,  you  say:  "Strikes  were  also  threatened 
in  tne  harvest  field.  As  to  what  is  being  done  in  the 
Utah  and  Nevada  mining  districts — "  Now,  they  were 
two  districts  that  had  really  been  left  out,  up  to  date? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  was  the  Utah,  Utah  copper  mines  there, 
and  Utah  lead  mines,  I  speak  of  the  state,  the  mines 
in  the  state,  there  is  a  good  deal  of  copper  and  a  good 
deal  of  lead  produced  there  and  in  Nevada,  a  good 
deal  of  the  same  ? 

A. — Well,  some  copper  and  not  much  lead  in 
Nevada. 

Q. — "As  to  what  is  being  done  in  the  Utah  and 
Nevada  mining  districts,  I  am  not  able  to  specify  in 
detail,  but  I  know  that  attempts  have  been  made  to 
bring  Bingham  Canyon  in  line."  That  was  the  Utah 
section  there  where  the  great  Utah  copper  interests 
are? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  a  great  lot  of  copper  is  produced,  "and 
that  organizers  have  been  sent  to  Nevada  to  get 
them  in  line."  Do  you  remember  that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  was  the  fact  too,  was  it? 
A> — That  is   true.     There   wer.e   organizers   in 
Nevada. 

Q. — "Apparently  success  has  not  yet  awarded 
their  efforts.  You  must  admit  that  it  is  some  job  to 
swing  all  this  vast  territory,  but  if  it  can  humanly 
be  done,  it  will  be  done.  Perhaps  your  march  for 
home  will  be  the  spark  that  will  set  the  mining  dis- 
tricts of  the  country  ablaze  with  revolt  and  swing 
them  into  line  with  you."  Now,  you  really  remember 
that  letter  now,  don't  you? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 


158  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q._You  don't? 
A.— No. 

Q. — Well,  now  that  seems  to  contemplate  that  at 
this  time,  July  31,  1917,  that  the  entire  mining  dis- 
trict of  the  United  States  would  be  tied  up  in  a  strike, 
and  that  the  harvest  fields  would,  isn't  that  so? 

A. — Well,  according  to  this  letter,  there  is  an 
effort  being  made  in  the  different  districts,  but  that 
is  a  long  ways  from  tying  it  up. 

Q._How  is  that? 

A. — It  was  a  long  ways  from  tying  it  up. 

Q. — Well  it  may  be  something  intervened  after 
this,  while  this  was  in  the  mind  of  the  membership, 
and  of  these  agitators,  and  this  something  intervened 
and  stopped  it? 

A. — What  was  it? 

Q.— Didn't  it? 

A. — The  return  of  the  men,  or  relief  of  the  men 
from  Columbus? 

Q. — Well,  let's  see,  that  was  one  of  the  things, 
but  the  nipping  in  the  bud,  so  to  speak,  of  the  agri- 
cultural workers  strike  in  the  North  West,  do  you 
think  that  had  anything  to  do  with  it? 

A. — Now,  you  speak  about  nipping  in  the  bud — 

Q._Yes. 

A. — What  was  that  nipping  in  the  bud?  The 
agreement  with  the  Non-Partisan  League? 

Q. — Well,  if  you  ask  me, — 

A. — The  tacit  agreement. 

Q. — I  ask  you  if  you  don't  think  it  was  nipping 
it  in  the  bud  when  Rowan  and  his  people  who  were 
sponsors  for  the  agricultural  workers'  strike  out  there 
were  arrested,  put  under  military  arrest? 

A. — Oh,  I  don't  think  that  had  anything  to  do 
with  it. 

Q._You  don't? 

A.— No. 

Q. — You  remember  you  spoke  about  sending  a 
wire  to  President  Wilson? 

A.— Yes. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  159 

Q. — You  sent  him  this  wire,  August  3,  1917,  did 
you  not — I  should  say  you  sent  a  wire  to  Kimball  on 
that  date,  referring  to  a  wire  to  President  Wilson: 
"A.  D.  Kimball,  Executive  Committee,  Columbus, 
New  Mexico."  Now,  does  that  refresh  your  recollec- 
tion as  to  who  Kimball  was? 

A. — I  know  who  Kimball  is. 

Q. — I  thought  a  little  while  ago  you  said  you  did 
not  know  who  he  was. 

A. — I  said  I  didn't  know  in  what  official  position 
he  was. 

Q. — Now,  does  this  refresh  your  recollection  on 
that? 

A. — Yes,  it  does. 

Q. — "Have  sent  telegram  to  President  Wilson  as 
requested  strikes  of  miners,  lumber  jacks,  harvest 
workers,  growing;  marine  transport  workers  report 
action.*' 

Now,  at  that  time,  the  impression  you  were  giving 
to  him  was  that  the  lumber  was  tied  up,  the  copper 
and  the  lead  was  tied  up,  the  strike  was  on  in  the 
harvest  fields,  so  that  the  food  would  be  tied  up,  and 
now  as  the  crowning  act,  the  transport  workers  were 
going  to  strike? 

A. — Yes;  I  was  giving  him  just  as  much  encour- 
agement as  I  possibly  could.  Remember,  there  were 
nearly  1200  men  in  that  desert. 

Q. — Well,  now,  that  is  a  pretty  broad  scheme  as 
outlined  here? 

A. — Yes,  it  is  broad,  yes. 

Q. — Pretty  broad? 

A. — I  wish  I  could  have  put  it  into  effect. 

Q. — Now,  do  you  say  you  think  you  could  have 
got  at  that  in  any  better  way  than  you  did  get  at  it? 

A. — Well,  yes,  we  could  have  if  we  had  more 
force  and  more  money. 

Q. — As  a  matter  of  fact  a  general  strike  is  a 
thing  that  grows,  isn't  it,  as  a  matter  of  mass  and  mob 
psychology? 

A. — Oh,  it  will  grow  and  take  on  force. 


160  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— It  is  not  contemplated  in  a  general  strike 
that  it  will  come  on  like  a  clap  of  thunder  out  of  a 
blue  sky? 

A. — Well,  it  did  in  the  Northwest,  didn't  it? 

Q. — Well,  it  started  in  that  way;  but  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  Mr.  Haywood,  wasn't  it  the  plan  that  you 
would  start  it  in  a  small  way,  and  like  a  snow  ball 
that  increases  in  size  and  momentum,  when  rolled 
down  a  slope,  that  it  was  expected  that  it  would 
gradually  extended  from  Sandpoint,  the  first  one  that 
was  instituted,  up  in  the  Pacific  Northwest,  until  it 
included  every  industry  in  the  United  States  where 
the  I.  W.  W.  prevailed? 

A. — Let  me  say  to  that,  I  knew  nothing  about  the 
strike  or  the  resolution,  contemplated  strike  or  re- 
solution at  Sandpoint,  never  heard  of  it  until  I  heard 
of  it  in  this  court  room,  and  there  was  no  such  plan. 

Q. — Well,  it  was  pretty  much  in  line  with — 

A. — If  you  want  to  know  how  I  felt  about  it,  I 
would  like  to  have  done  that  same  thing,  to  have 
compelled  the  return  of  those  men  to  their  wives  and 
babies  at  Bisbee. 

Q. — Yes,  you  would  like  to  have  done  it  before 
there  were  any  incidents  of  that  kind  happened? 

A. — Not  at  all  except  perhaps — 

Q. — Had  the  men  at  Bisbee  interfered  with  at  the 
time  that  the  lumber  workers  strike  was  called — 

A. — June  20th. 

Q. — June  20th? 

A. — No,  no. 

Q. — When  were  the  men  deported  from  Bisbee? 

A. — I  think  it  was  July  12th,  I  don't  just  remem- 
ber that  date,  but  it  occurs  to  me  it  was  July  12th. 

Q.— Now,  isn't  that  whole  program,  beginning 
with  the  Sandpoint  strike,  and  running  down  through 
the  lumber  camps,  both  sides  of  the  coast,  and  into 
the  copper  fields  of  Arizona,  Utah,  Nevada,  Michi- 
gan, Minnesota,  into  the  harvest  fields,  and  finally  in- 
to the  transport  workers,  the  very  thing  that  is  out- 
lined in  your  own  book.  The  General  Strike? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  161 

A. — I  think  I  gave  a  pretty  good  outline  of  that, 
of  the  general  strike,  and  what  it  means. 

MR.  PORTER :  Mr.  Nebeker,  the  jury  did  not  get 
that  answer  of  Mr.  Haywood. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  wish  you  would  read  that,  Mr. 
Reporter.     (Answer  read.) 

Q. — I  want  to  ask  you  about  this  pamphlet,  Mr. 
Haywood.  I  notice  in  this  pamphlet  in  large  letters, 
it  is  called:  ''The  General  Strike,  by  William  D. 
Haywooa," 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  underneath  that  in  small  letters  is  also ; 
"The  Last  War,  by  G.  B." 

A. Yes. 

Q._Who  was  G.  B.? 

A. — George  Barrett. 

Q. — An  Englishman? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — This  was  written  in  England? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — When  was  it  first  published  along  with  your 
"General  Strike"? 

A. — Well,  I  think  it  was  the  last  edition  of  the 
"General  Strike." 

Q. — When  was  that,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — I  don't  recall,  sometime  in  1916. 

A  JUROR:  Louder,  please. 

MR.  PORTER:  Mr.  Haywood,  I  am  afraid  you  get 
to  talking  to  Mr.  Nebeker,  and  the  jury  over  here 
don't  get  it. 

A. — I  think  sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  1916. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  There  are  some  18  pages  of 
"The  General  Strike"  written  by  you? 

A. Yes. 

Q;_And  27  pages  of  "The  Last  War"  by  G.  B.? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — "The  Last  War"  by  G.  B.  is  a  strong  appeal 
to  the  English  workingmen  not  to  engage  in  the  war, 
isn't  it? 


162  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Well,  I  don't  know.  It  recites  that  the  war 
means  and  what  the  peace  after  the  war  means. 

Q. — Well,  for  instance,  it  says:  "When  we  are 
called  upon  to  fight — 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  If  you  will  stand  back,  Mr. 
Nebeker. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  probably  ought  not  to  stand  up 
at  all. 

Q. — ''When  we  are  called  upon  to  fight  wars  so 
arranged,  are  we  going  to  reply  by  saying:  'Well, 
since  you  have  already  picked  the  quarrel  we  will 
fight?'  Is  not  such  an  answer  absolutely  asking  the 
ministei-s  to  continue  their  secret  diplomacy? 

"What  does  it  really  imply?  It  means:  if  you 
were  to  ask  us  before  things  were  settled  we  might 
disagree  with  you,  but  since  you  settle  the  matter 
first  we  will  not  dispute  it,  and  will  fight  for  you.  And 
so,  taught  by  the  crowd,  the  polticians  continue  to 
settle  matters  first,  and  to  manufacture  the  causes  of 
war  in  private,  knowing  that  the  people  will  be  wil- 
ling to  fight  when  the  enemy  is  on  the  march.  What 
is  the  alternative  it  may  still  be  asked.  How  can  we 
do  other  than  defeat  the  Germans  by  helping  our 
government,  even  though  we  may  know  that  the 
latter  is  composed  of  the  politicians  who  tomorrow 
will  send  the  army  to  shoot  us? 

"Indeed,  the  only  other  course  that  we  can  take 
is  that  which  I  have  tried  to  indicate,  and  that  is  to 
join  the  army  of  workers,  who  would  oppose  in  every 
possible  way  all  invaders  as  much  those  who  now 
possess  our  country  as  those  who  are  quarreling  for 
it.  Each  government  wants  it  in  order  that  the  rich 
men  of  its  country  may  get  richer  by  the  labor  of  the 
worker." 

Now,  that  is  only  taken  at  random  from  this 
book,  being  a  book  that  was  written  precisely  for  that 
purpose,  to  prevent,  to  persuade  English  working 
men  against  participation  in  the  war  against  the 
German  nation.  Now,  is  that  not  a  fair  statement  of 
the  contents  and  purposes  of  that  article? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  163 

A. — I  think  perhaps  that  is  about  as  fair  as  you 
could  make  it. 

Q. — Well,  do  you  mean — 

A. — This  book,  really  is  an  anti-military  book, 
written  while  the  war  is  on. 

Q. — And  the  general  strike  by  you  is  meant  as 
an  opposition  to  war  by  you? 

A. — I  am  very  much  opposed  to  war. 

Q. — Yes.  And  the  general  strike  is  a  medium  by 
which  war  can  be  prevented? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  that  was  the  suggestion  you  had  got  out 
to  the  membership  of  the  I.  W.  W.  during  all  of  the 
months  from  April  6th  until  September  1st,  1917, 
isn't  it? 

A. — I  don't  know  as  it  was  distributed  during  all 
of  those  months;  it  may  have  been. 

Q. — Wasn't  there  20,000  of  them  shown  by  fig- 
ures put  in  evidence,  20,000  printed  at  one  time? 

A. Yes. 

Q.'— In  March,  1917? 

A. — I  think  likely. 

Q. — And  they  were  all  sent  out,  weren't  they? 

A. — No,  they  were  not. 

Q. — By  the  way,  the  mailing  clerk  in  1917,  was 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Bird,  wasn't  he,  shipping 
clerk? 

A.— 1917? 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — I  don't  remember  whether  Bird  was  there  in 
1917,  or  whether  it  was  Rumbaugh. 

Q. — Anyhow,  do  you  know  where  Bird  is? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q. — Or  Rumbaugh? 

A. — Rumbaugh,  I  understand  is  in  the  army. 

Q. — I  want  to  examine  you  just  for  a  few  mo- 
ments on  your  idea  of  conducting  business  in  the  or- 
ganization. At  least  counsel  asked  you  and  you  told 
how  open  it  was,  everything  was  open  and  above- 


164  TESTIMONY  OF 

board,  no  idea  of  concealing  anything.  Mr.  Harry 
Lloyd  is  one  of  the  defendants  here,  isn't  he? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  Bert  Lorton  is  also  one? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — They  were  both  in  office,  were  they  not  in 
August,  August  21,  1917? 

A. — Harry  Lloyd,  I  think  at  that  time  was  sec- 
retary of  the  recruiting  union,  and. one  or  more  of 
the  branches  at  Portland,  and  Bert  Lorton  was  sec- 
retary of  the  Chicago  Recruiting  Union. 

Q. — Now,  I  call  your  attention  to  a  letter  from 
Lloyd  to  Lorton,  in  which  it  states:  ''Will  state  that 
all  records  and  books  are  planted."  What  is  meant 
by  being  planted? 

A. — It  is  meant  that  they  were  hidden. 

Q. — ''As  we  expect  a  pinch  any  time;  will  be  im- 
possible at  this  time  to  look  up  records,  but  will  do  so 
when  opportunity  calls.  Things  are  warming  up  here 
now.  We  are  liable  to  be  all  in  the  can  at  any  time 
now." 

Well,  when  were  they  hidden,  and — and  when 
they  were  hidden  and  planted  they  were  not  to  be 
had,  were  they? 

A. — No,  they  were  not. 

Q. — So  at  least  in  that  case  the  branch  secretary 
at  Portland,  Numbers  400  and  500,  the  record  of  that 
office  were  not  to  be  had  at  that  time? 

A. — Well,  is  that  letter  from  Lloyd  to  Lorton  or 
Lorton  to — 

Q. — Lloyd  to  Lorton. 

A. — Lloyd  to  Lorton? 

Q Yes. 

MR.  PORTER:  What  is  the  date,  Mr.  Nebeker? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  August  21,  1917. 

Q.- — Now,  Brazier,  as  we  have  learned,  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Executive  Board.  I  want  to  call  your  at- 
tention to  a  letter  that  Lloyd  wrote  to  Brazier  at 
1001  West  Madison  street,  Chicago,  on  the  same 
date,  August  21st,  in  which  he  says:   "Everything 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  165 

here  now  is  warming  up  and  we  are  expecting  a 
pinch  at  any  time.  We  have  got  everything  planted; 
that  is  of  any  account;  the  only  thing  the  authorities 
will  get  is  the  desks.  Everyone  has  got  the  strike 
fever  on  the  Coast;  there  are  about  20  of  the  boys 
in  the  can  serving  from  20  days  to  six  months.  We 
are  liable  to  be  all  in  soon,  so  don't  be  surprised 
when  you  hear  of  the  big  pinch." 

Was  that  called  to  your  attention,  that  letter? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  I  saw  that  latter. 

Q._What? 

A. — I  don't  think  I  saw  that  letter. 

Q. — Well,  now,  Don  Sheridan  is  one  of  the  de- 
fendants here? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — He  was  up  at  Spokane,  Washington,  and 
very  prominent  and  acted  for  the  I.  W.  W.'s  in  that 
section  of  the  country,  wasn't  he? 

A. — Yes,  he  w^as  at  one  time  secretary  of  500. 

Q. — Preceded  Rowan? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Up  to  about  the  middle  of  May,  or,  rather 
the  latter  part  of  May,  he  left  office  on  May  28th,  and 
Rowan  came  in  at  that  time,  didn't  he  ? 

A. — T  don't  know  that  for  a  fact. 

Q. — Well,  then  he  succeeded  Rowan  after  Rowan 
was  arrested  on  August  19th? 

A. — That  is  what  I  stated,  he  was  at  one  time 
secretary  of  500. 

Q. — Now,  you  remember  a  letter  that  he  wrote 
from  Spokane  to  Richard  Brazier  in  Chicago,  in 
which  he  said:  "I  got  your  letter  and  also  saw  the 
one  to  J.  R."  Who  was  J.  R.? 

A. — Well,  I  should  judge  it  was  Jim  Rowan. 

Q. — '"'Which  arrived  this  morning.  I  see  you  are 
taking  precautions  in    Chi" — Chi  means   Chicago? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — "taking  precautions  in  Chi;  I  ami  glad  of 
thar;  we  are  doing  the  same  here  and  have  all  of 


166  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  records  and  most  of  the  supplies  cachrDd  in  a 
safe  place." 

Had  you  been  taking  some  precautions  in  Chi? 

A. — I  don't  recall  what  they  wer^. 

Q. — Well,  he  evidently  had  been  informed  by 
somebody  that  you  had  taken  precautions  with  your 
records  and  papers,  hadn't  he? 

A. — Evidently  from  that  letter,  but  you  have  got 
all  the  records  and  papers  upstairs. 

Q. — At  any  rate  he  knew  what  he  was  talking 
about  when  he  says:  ''I  have  all  records  and  most  of 
the  supplies  cached  in  safe  places  in  Spokane." 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  here  is  a  letter  signed  by  William  D. 
Haywood,  August  27,  1917,  to  Henry  Wilson,  in 
which  it  is  said :  ''I  see  you  expect  the  same  kind  of 
tactics  there  as  has  been  pulled  in  Bisbee,  and  I 
agree  with  you  that  they  will  have  a  different  recep- 
tion in  Seattle  with  that  kind -of  stuff  to  what  they 
got  in  Bisbee.  Hoping  that  you  have  taken  precau- 
tions to  cover  any  eventuality  that  may  arise  in  your 
locality,  I  remain,  with  best  wishes,  yours  for  the  O. 
B.  U." 

Did  that  have  som.e  suggestion  in  it  as  to  dispos- 
ing of  the  papers? 

A. — No,  not  necessarily  the  papers,  but  the 
stamps  and  membership  books,  and  record  books  of 
the  organization.  You  know  that  an  organization 
cannot  thrive  very  well  with  all  of  our  stuff  in  the 
hands  of  the  government. 

Q. — Well,  now,  here  is  a  letter  to  you  dated 
August  30,  1917.  I  don't  know  who  it  is  from.  May- 
be you  can  tell  me.  It  is  a  copy  of  a  letter.  I  guess 
it  is  a  reply  to  Wilson,  and  the  letter  is  attached  in 
all  probability. 

A. — I  think  that  must  be  from  Wilson. 

Q. — There  is  not  any  doubt  about  your  having 
received  it  and  read  it^ 

A. — I  don't  think  so. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  IGT 

Q. — In  that  letter  Mr.  Wilson  informs  you — by 
the  way,  he  wrote  from  what  point? 

A. — Seattle. 

Q. — Seattle.   Sheridan  wrote  from  Spokane? 

A. — Spokane. 

Q. — Harry  Lloyd  wrote  from  Portland? 

A. — Portland. 

Q. — Portland.  Now,  this  man  writes  from  Seattle 
and  informs  you:  ''Things  are  going  better  here,  al- 
though we  are  ever  on  the  watch.  Last  week  we  took 
everything  out  of  the  office  that  was  anyv>^ay  valu- 
able, and  I  am  now  using  a  room  where  we  do  all  of 
the  work,  'ihis  was  done  in  expectation  of  a  raid  by 
a  bunch  of  patriotic  business  men.  However,  noth- 
ing showed  up,  although  we  are  still  playing  safe 
by  keeping  the  room.  Don't  think  anything  will  be 
pulled  off  here.  The  agitation  is  still  being  kept  up 
by  the  so-called  patr'lQtic  societies  and  they  are 
throv/ing  Wobblies  into  jail  right  and  left.  At  Port- 
land I  understand  the  police  is  pretty  active  and 
there  is  a  big  bunch  in  jail  there  without  charges." 

Novv^  you  remember  receiving  that  letter,  did 
you  say? 

A. — Oh,  I  suppose. 

Q. — And  receiving  the  information  that  they  had 
also  cached  certain  things  in  Seattle. 

A. — And  receiving  the  further  information  as  to 
whom  they  expected? 

Q._Yes. 

A. —  (Continued.) — to  raid  their  hall,  a  mob. 

Q. — A  patriotic  mob? 

A. — Yes;  just  the  same  as  run  the  men  out  in 
Bisbee. 

Q. — Yes;  but  I  am  now  inquiring  about  the  meth- 
ods of  the  organization  as  to  leaving  the  papers 
where  they  could  be  found  in  case  the  government 
went  after  the  organization  ? 

A. — Well,  you  will  find  a  letter  from  me  to  Chief 
Justice  Covington  where  I  invited  him  to  come  to 
Headquarters. 


168  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — And  that  all  the  papers  and  all  of  the  books 
would  be  found. 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — Yes.  But  when  they  anticipated  a  mob  com- 
ing, why,  they — you  don't  think  they  are  going  to 
leave  their  books  and  records  and  membership  cards 
and  stamps  where  they  can  be  taken,  do  you? 

THE  COURT:  Ten  minutes  recess. 

(Whereupon  a  short  recess  was  taken.) 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  a  few 
questions  on  some  of  the  pamphlets  about  the  propo- 
sition that  a  Proletarian  movement  must  be  beyond 
the  law,  against  the  law.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  re- 
call some  work  that  was  done  by  Jack  Law — where 
was  it  In  Aberdeen,  South  Dakota,  oh  a  defense  of 
some  I,  W.  W.'s  charged  with  the  commission  of 
crime  up  there  ? 

A. — I  think  that  was  Aberdeen. 

Q. — You  think  it  was  Aberdeen? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Men  on  trial? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  Law  went  up  there  under  your  direc- 
tion, did  he? 

A. — He  did  not. 

Q._He  did  not? 

A. — He  did  not. 

Q. — Well,  he  was  there  working  with  your  knowl- 
edge and  consent? 

A. — I  really  had  not  any  knowledge  of  Jack  go- 
ing there  until  after  he  arrived  on  the  ground. 

Q._What? 

A. — Until  after  he  had  arrived  on  the  ground. 

Q. — I  see.  You  did  know  after  he  had  got  up 
there,  he  reported  directly  to  you,  didn't  he? 

A. — I  think  I  had  one  letter  from  him. 

Q. — And  in  that  letter  which  was  written  from 
Aberdeen,  South  Dakota,  September  23,  1915,  he 
says,  *'We  are  going  to  play  the  game  different  here 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  169 

in  this  case.  We  will  try  the  case  purely  on  its  merits 
and  won't  stand  for  the  organization  to  be  put  on 
trial,  for  if  we  do,  we  will  lose  sure  as  can  be.  In 
fact,  we  will  try  to  win  the  case  out  of  court,  and  go  to 
court  merely  to  make  it  look  dignified,  as  the  at- 
torney puts  it. 

''Say,  I  put  your  name  on  the  defense  committee, 
for  I  know  it  will  have  some  effect,  and  did  not  think 
you  would  have  any  objection." 

Then,  after  outlining  the  program  up  there,  he 
says:  ''Hoping  you  agree  with  the  policy  as  out- 
lined," that  is  the  policy  of  trying  the  case  out  of 
court,  in  his  language,  "I  remain,  yours  to  the  finish, 
J.  A.  Law." 

And  then  there  was  attached  to  that  letter,  do 
you  remember,  this:  "Keep  this  to  yourself,  or  be 
sure  that  it  is  a  member  in  good  standing  that  you 
show  it  to.  This  is  a  list  of  jurymen  that  has  been 
subpoenaed  in  the  county  of  Brov\m,  City  of  Aber- 
deen, and  State  of  North  Dakota,  and  will  try  all 
criminal  cases,  and  if  you  are  working  for  any  of 
the  $  $  $  there"  I  suppose  capitalists  are  meant 
"names  mentioned  below,  don't  try  to  get  in  a  bad, 
but  try  to  make  a  good  showing  for  the  I.  W.  W." 

That  was  attached  to  this  letter ;  do  you  recall 
it? 

A. — No;  I  don't  recall  that  postscript.  I  heard 
the  letter  read  here. 

Q. — Now,  you  understand  from  that  letter  that 
and — you  understand  from  that  letter  that  an  effort 
was  being  made  by  Law  to  do,  at  least  improper  work 
of  some  kind  with  the  jurymen  in  that  case,  didn't 
you  ? 

A. — What  did  he  say  about  the  jurymen? 

Q. — Well,  later  on  there  is  something  about  the 
jurymen  and  witnesses:  "Keep  this.  This  is  a  list  of 
jurymen  that  has  been  subpoenaed  in  the  County  of 
Brown."  At  any  rate,  don't  you  recall  that  there  was 
something  in  the  Law  correspondence  to  you— 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Mr.  Haywood  asked  you  a 


170  TESTIMONY  OF 

question,  Mr.  Nebeker,  which  he  evidently  felt  es- 
sential to  an  answer. 

THE  WITNESS:  What  is  the  reference  there? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — What  reference  are  you 
asking  about? 

A. — About  the  jury?  You  asked  me  something 
about  the  jury. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— I  just  read  one  reference: 
"This  is  a  list  of  the  jurymen  subpoenaed  in  the 
County  of  Brown,  City  of  Aberdeen,  State  of  North 
Dakota."  Attached  to  that? 

A. — And  the  suggestion  is  that  members  in  good 
standing  in  there  working  for  these  men  would  be- 
have themselves,  is  that  it?  Because  they  would  try — 

Q. — I  want  to  find  out  from  you  now  if  you  re- 
member what  was  in  the  Law  letters? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  remember  the  full  contents  of 
it. 

Q. — About  the  jury? 

A. — I  don't  remember  the  full  contents  of  it. 

Q. — Don't  you  remember  there  was  any  improper 
suggestion  in  the  letter  by  Law  to  you  directly  about 
that  jury  in  those  cases  up  there? 

A. — Well,  I  heard  what  the  Judge  here  said; 
let's  have  the  letter. 

Q. — Well,  I  am  asking  you  now  if  you  remember 
it  and  then  we  will  get  the  letters  right  away? 

A. — Yes;  I  remember  it. 

Q. — You  remember  those  letters,  do  you? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — "Enclosed  find  list  of  jury  as  impaneled  for 
this  term  of  court.  Some  of  them  are  all  O.  K.  Over- 
look mistakes  as  I  am  a  damn  poor  writer.  Jack 
Law." 

"Now,  on  October  6th  from  the  same  place  a 
letter  to  you  which  says,  "Received  yours  of  the  27th 
with  credentials  O.  K."  You  had  sent  credentials  for 
the  defense  committee,  then,  had  you? 

A. — I  don't  recall  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  cannot  hear. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  171 

A. — I  don't  recall  it.  I  don't  remember  having 
sent  those  credentials. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.—"l  have  been  in  the  country 
one  day  and  had  good  results.  We  have  seen  several 
of  the  prospective  jurors  and  feel  fine  at  the  success 
we  have  had  so  far." 

Now,  you  remember  that? 

A. — Yes,  I  remember  it. 

Q. — Did  it  occur  to  you  that  there  was  anything 
wrong  about  Jack  Law  being  up  there  seeing  pros- 
pective jurors  in  a  case? 

A. — I  don't  know  that  I  was  particularly  im- 
pressed with  it.  What  is  my  answer  to  it?  I  never 
heard  that  read  yet. 

Q. — Well,  we  will  get  to  that  in  a  moment. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Let  me  have  the  letters, 
will  you? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Let  me  keep  them,  please  until 
I  get  through  with  my  examination. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Are  you  using  them  now? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Yes. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  in  that  same  letter  Jack 
Law  said  to  you,  ''Bill,  the  witnesses  have  not  come 
here  as  yet  and  that  leaves  us  in  bad  as  we  will  have 
to  make  some  as  soon  as  we  can."  Do  you  remember 
that? 

A. — No,  I  do  not  know  that  I  do. 

Q. — What  would  you  understand  by  that?  "Make 
some  witnesses?" 

A. — Well,  I  think  it  is  plain  enough.  It  is  a  state- 
ment that  he  makes  there. 

Q. — That  is,  to  get  men  to  come  in  there  and  tes- 
tify falsely,  is  that  what  you  understood  it  meant? 

A. — I  don't  know  really,  I  don't  know  really  what 
he  meant. 

Q. — Isn't  that  what  you  would  think  he  would 
mean? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  the  way  it  would  look  to  me. 

Q. — Well,  now,  you  denounced  him  for  that, 
didn't  you? 


172  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — I  do  not  know  what  I  may  have  said  to  him. 
If  you  will  remember  that  there  was  some  20,000 
letters  in  these  files, — I  don't  remember  them. 

Q. — Yes,  I  will  try — well,  in  the  first  place.  You 
were  always  very  careful  about  writing  letters, — 
what  you  would  put  in  a  letter,  wouldn't  you? 

A. — I  have  alwaS^s  tried  to  be  careful  of  what  I 
write. 

Q. — In  other  words,  in  a  letter  of  April  17,  1916, 
to  Dave  Ingar,  Youngstown,  Ohio,  you  say,  'There  is 
nothing  in  the  two  letters  I  wrote  you  that  could  be 
used  to  your  detriment.  Enclosed  find  copy.  I  am 
very  careful  in  writing  letters  at  all  times,  especially 
so  to  a  Fellow  Worker  while  trouble  is  involved." 
Do  you  remember  that? 

A. — Yes,  that  would  be  the  natural  course  of 
events. 

Q. — Calling  your  attention  to  your  letter  to  Jack 
Law  in  answer  to  his  of  the  6th  I  have  just  referred 
to,  do  you  remember  of  saying  this:  ''Your  letter  of 
the  6th  inst.  acknowledging  receipt  of  credentials  is 
at  hand.  I  think  the  work  you  are  doing,  that  of  in- 
vestigating the  jurors  who  v/illprobably  be  called  in 
the  Schmidt  case  was  of  the  most  importance.  There 
is  nothing  like  knowing  the  men  before  they  go  into 
the  trial  of  the  case.  I  do  not  think  a  member  would 
be  found  who  would  be  so  narrow  minded  as  to  ques- 
tion or  to  ask  for  an  explanation.  This  is  a  serious 
case  and  preparation  had  to  be  made." 

You  remember  of  writing  that  letter,  don't  you? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  the  letter.  I  probably 
wrote  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Let's  see  the  original. 

Q. — I  read  another  paragraph  from  a  letter  from 
Jack  Law  to  you:  (Reading.)  "I  leave  here  on  Friday 
for  Minni.  and  I  don't  know  whether  I  will  come  back 
or  not,  as  Nef  don't  think  he  can  afford  to  keep  two 
men  here  and  the  members  will  want  to  know  how 
it  is  that  I  am  drawing  ten  a  week  from  the  organiza- 
tion and  not  doing  anything.    But  I  can't  tell  them 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  173 

what  I  am  doing  for  it  might  get  me  and  other  good 
people  in  bad." 

Now,  do  you  remember  that  statement? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  that  particular  state- 
ment. 

Q. — And  isn't  it  in  reply  to  that  that  you  say: 
"Don't  think  any  member  would  be  found  who  would 
be  so  narrow  minded  as  to  question  your  work,  or 
to  ask  for  an  explanation." 

A. — That  is  my  reply? 

Q. — That  is  your  reply. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  in  no  answer  to  Jack  Law  at  any  spot 
or  place  did  you  criticise  him  for  attempting  im- 
proper work  with  juries  or  with  suborning  of  wit- 
nesses, did  you? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — Did  you  want  to  see  the  letter  that  you 
wrote  ? 

A. — Yes,  I  would  like  to  see  the  letter.  You  didn't 
read  all  of  this  letter. 

Q.— Oh,  no. 

A. — There  are  two  letters  from  Jack  Law  there. 

Q. — Well,  it  contains  the  statement  I  did  read. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Without  any  question  whatsoever  about  it, 
doesn't  it? 

A. — Two  of  them  do,  yes. 

Q. — Your  answer  contains  the  statement  that  I 
have  read? 

A. — I  think  so. 

Q. — There  isn't  anything  in  your  answer  that  is 
by  way  of  criticism  of  anything  that  Jack  Law  had 
said  or  done? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Now,  there  was  some  discussion  in  the  organ- 
ization about  high  jacks,  was  there  not,  and  high 
jack  methods? 

A.— Yes. 


174  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — You  took  the  part  of  the  high  jacks,  didn't 
you? 

A. — No ;  I  did  not. 

Q. — Did  you  write  a  letter  to  Ben  Williams  in  re- 
gard to — to  Ben  Williams,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  January 
13,  1916,  in  which  you  said:  ''A  high-jack  is  a  hold- 
up. The  fellow  workers  from  the  harvest  field  tell 
some  great  stories  about  their  methods  of  work.  All 
during  the  last  season  while  among  the  scissor  bills'' 
— I  want  to  pause  there.  Now,  what  is  a  scissor  bill? 

A. — Well,  a  scissor  bill,  is  an  uninformed,  un- 
educated, unorganized  worker. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  A  scissor  bill  is  an  unin- 
formed, uneducated  and  unorganized  worker;  a  non- 
union man  in  many  instances,  and  a  scab. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Q.— They  work,  they  are  work- 
ing men,  however? 

A. — Oh,  yes,  there  is  some  of  them  who  are  wage 
workers  when  they  can  get  w^ork. 

Q. — That  would  be  a  term  that  would  apply  to 
any  migratory  worker  that  did  not  belong  to  any 
labor  organization,  would  it? 

A. — And  sometimes  apply  to  men  who  belong  to 
labor  organizations. 

Q. — But  it  would  at  least  apply  particularly 
to  working  men  who  did  not  belong  to  a  working- 
men's  organization? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  you  can  so  state  it. 

Q. — At  least  that.  Yes.  Then,  it  would  also  in- 
clude a  man  who  belonged  to  craft  unions  for  ex- 
ample? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  don't  know  of  any  scissor  bills  within  the 
I.  W.  W.,  do  you? 

A. — Well,  there  are  a  few  scissor  bills. 

Q. — There  are  a  few  scissor  bills  there? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. —  (Reading.)  ''All  during  last  season  while 
many  scissor  bills  were  held  up  and  robbed,  no  cir- 
cumstances recorded  where  an  I.  W.  W.  suffered  this 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  175 

treatment."  Now,  was  that  because  the  high-jacks 
were  within  the  organization? 

A. — No,  it  was  because  they  were  afraid  of  the 
organization. 

Q. — Oh,  because  they  were  afraid  of  the  organ- 
ization? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q. — *'In  many  instances  high-jacks  would  say 
when  they  approached  a  crowd  of  workers :  'All  you 
fellows  with  red  cards  step  over  here',  and  would 
then  proceed  to  go  through  the  rest.  This  is  not  al- 
together new,  I  have  known  cases  in  the  v/est  where 
a  strike  was  on  where  the  scabs  would  never  get 
home  with  their  pay."  ''One  might  have  called  hold- 
ups, high-jacks,  but  they  were  good  union  men  just 
the  same."   Now,  that  was  correct? 

A. — Yes,  that  was  correct. 

Q. — Did  you  mean  to  imply  in  that  statement  that 
some  of  these  men,  even  though  I.  W.  W.'s,  were  good 
union  men  all  the  same? 

A.— What  is  that? 

Q. — Did  you  mean  to  imply  that  high-jacks  who 
should  adopt  these  methods  would  be  good  union 
men? 

A. — No,  I  did  not. 

That  was  merely  a  comparison.  I  didn't  mean  in 
this  instance  that  the  high-jacks  were  I.  W.  W.'s. 

Q. — There  were  plenty  of  them  in  the  I.  W.  W., 
were  there  not? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — You  don't  think  so? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Wasn't  this  whole  controversy,  or  rather  this 
discussion,  in  which  you  took  the  part  of  the  high- 
jack, a  discussion  that  arose  from  the  fact  that  some- 
body— Forrest  Edwards, — no,  it  was  not  Edwards — 
somebody  wanted  to  take  action  against  those  mem- 
bers against  the  I.  W.  W.  that  were  high-jacking. 
Isn't  that  the  way  it  arose  ? 


176  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Well,  there  were  a  few,  you  will  find  a  cir- 
cular there,  or  a  bulletin  that  was  issued  against 
high-jacks  there. 

Q. — Yes.    I  am  not  asking  you  that  now. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Let  him  answer  the  ques- 
tion. 

THE  WITNESS:  No,  I  want  to  tell  you. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  All  right. 

A. — There  were  a  few  high-jacks  that  had  got 
into  the  organization,  and  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  them  out:  that  circular. 

Q. — And  then  the  controversy  was  started? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes. 

Q. — And  a  letter  was  written  to  you? 

A. — I  don't  know  just  what  the  letter  was. 

Q. — About  it,  by  Ben  Williams.  This  was  your 
reply,  (Indicating)  ? 

A. — Yes,  that  was  my  reply  to  Ben  Williams. 

Q. — Now,  at  the  time  you  were  endeavoring  to 
have  the  high-jacks  removed  from  the  organization? 

A. — I  was. 

Q. — And  you  wrote  Forrest  Edwards  on  June  3, 
1916,  with  respect  to  this  matter:  "I  feel  that  there 
are  questions  involved" — that  is  with  reference  to  the 
high-jack — that  ought  to  be  considered  with  more 
care.  I  do  not  believe  that  they  should  be  discussed 
at  the  business  meeting  in  K.  C,  or  for  that  matter,  in 
any  other  business  meeting."  Why  not?  Why  should 
not  this  subject  about  high-jacking  be  discussed  in 
any  meeting? 

A. — I  don't  know  just  all  of  the  letter.  Go  ahead 
and  read  it  all.   Probably  I  can  explain  it. 

Q. — "And  it  is  something  that  should  be  talked 
over  a  line  of  action  determined  upon  by  the  organ- 
ization committee.  There  are  some  good  men  who 
have  been  temporarily  sidetracked  but  who  will  and 
can  get  on  the  main  line  when  they  see  that  the  or- 
ganization means  business.  There  are  some  of  those 
men  whom  we  do  not  like  to  antagonize.    They  are 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  177 

red-blooded  and  will  make  good  members  when  they 
get  on  the  job." 

Now,  was  that  with  respect  to  high-jacks? 

A. — With  respect  to  those  referred  to  as  high- 

-J  o  pTrQ 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Is  the  word  "high-jack" 
mentioned  in  the  letter  anywhere? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Do  you  remember  receiving 
a  letter  from  Charles  Schultz,  dated  September  22, 
1916,  in  which  he  says:  "Just  a  few  lines  to  let  you 
know  that  the  authorities  are  on  a  sharp  lookout  for 
Arthur  Boose,  as  there  has  been  a  secret  indictment 
filed  against  him  for  taking  part  in  the  murder  of 
Myron,  and  am  sending  you  clipping  so  that  if  you 
know  his  whereabouts  you  can  warn  him."  Do  you 
remember  that? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes. 

Q. — Did  you  warn  him? 

A. — No,  I  did  not  see  Arthur  Boose. 

Q. — Did  you  tell  Schultz  that  that  should  not  be 
done  by  anybody  or  that  it  would  be  unlawful  with  a 
man  who  had  been  indicted  to  warn  him  so  that  he 
could  keep  out  of  the  way? 

A. — I  think  I  wrote  that  letter  to  Schultz. 

Q. — You  did  write  a  letter  to  Schultz  ? 

A. — I  don't  recall  the  letter,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  that  is  what  I  would  have  done. 

Q. — In  which  you  said,  "Got  your  letters  and  clip- 
pings enclosed.  I  agree  with  you  in  regard  to  the 
matter.  Thank  you  for  your  kindly  advice."  That  is 
all  you  say  about  it,  was  it? 

A. — Of  course,  I  do  not  know  what  the  letter  is. 
You  are  reading  stuff  there  to  me. 

Q. — Well,  at  any  rate  you  acquiesced  in  the  sug- 
gestion that  a  man  who  had  been  indicted  for  murder 
should  be  informed  by  the  organization  so  that  he 
could  keep  out  of  the  way? 

A. — Yes,  I  did  in  that  instance.  I  would  have  no- 
tified others  who  were  later  released  after  being  held 
in  jail  for  many  months. 


178  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Now,  you  remember,  do  you  not  of  writing  a 
letter  to  Margaret  Rey  at  Philadelphia,  July  7,  1917, 
relative  to  Manuel  Key's  incarceration  in  jail,  in 
which  you  say:  "Manuel  is  not  what  the  people  in 
jail  say  he  is.  We  know  that  he  is  a  sincere  worker 
who  has  done  and  is  still  doing  his  very  best  to  better 
the  conditions  of  all  workers;  and  that  he  is  in  jail 
because  of  that  and  no  other  reason.  You  can  realize 
that  we  are  not  yet  strong  enough,  however,  to  open 
the  jail  doors  and  release  all  our  boys  who  are  behind 
prison  bars,  just  because  they  are  fighters  for  the 
working  class,  but  some  day  we  will  gain  that 
strength  and  they  will  never  be  able  to  hold  men  like 
Manuel  in  their  jails  for  nothing.'' 

A. — And  I  hope  that  day  comes. 

Q. — You  expect  the  L  W.  W.  to  gain  the  strength 
by  which  men  incarcerated  in  the  jails  who  were 
workers,  as  you  say,  but  wiio  had  been  duly  convicted 
by  courts  and  by  juries  and  sentenced  to  jail,  would 
be  liberated  by  the  I.  W.  Vv^.  ? 

A. — Now,  this  man  had  never  been  convicted. 

Q. — Well,  I  am  not  asking  you  about  that.  But 
this  is  the  general  proposition  that  you  put  in  this 
letter? 

A.— I  trust  the  day  will  come  when  the  I.  W.  W. 
is  sufficiently  strong  to  liberate  all  men  V\^ho  are  un- 
justly convicted. 

Q. — But  you  want  the  I.  W.  Vf.  to  be  the  judge  as 
to  whether  they  are  unjustly  convicted,  don't  you? 

A. — I  don't  always  think  the  juries  and  judges 
that  convict  them  should  be  the  ones. 

Q. — Rey  was  held  there  on  a  registration  charge, 
wasn't  he ;  failing  to  register? 

A. — I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — Now,  you  endorsed  the  sabotage  literature 
of  the  organization,  and  have  done  so,  haven't  you? 

A. — No,  I  do  not.  There  are  suggestions  and  re- 
ferences in  the  sabotage  literature  that  I  do  not  en- 
dorse. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  179 

Q. — Well,  in  what  way  have  you  manifested  in 
writing  any  disposition  to  criticise  it? 

A. — Well,  I  am  not  a  critic,  but  I  have  my  ov/n 
ideas  of  what  sabotage  is. 

Q. — You  particularly  recommend  Pouget's  Sabot- 
age to  be  translated  into  the  foreign  languages,  didn't 
you? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Pouget's  sabotage  contains  practically  every- 
thing in  the  v/ay  of  suggesting  damaging  mines  and 
injuries  to  property,  that  there  is  in  any  of  the  books 
on  sabotage,  in  the  organization,  doesn't  it? 

A. — It  has  many  suggestions  that  I  don't  endorse 
and  do  not  think  is  sabotage.  However,  most  of  them 
are  quotations. 

Q. — Yes;  quotations,  gathered  here  and  there, 
and  wherever  any  despicable  act  of  sabotage  could 
be  found,  involving  ingenuity,  secrecy,  and  more  or 
less  cowardice,  it  was  put  in  that  book  wasn't  it? 

A. — When  you  refer  to  sabotage  as  a  despicable 
and  cowardly  act,  it  show^s  that  you  don't  know  what 
sabotage  is. 

Q. — Is  it  to  be  done  in  the  open? 

A. — It  may  be  done  in  the  open. 

Q. — What  about  all  this  talk  of  doing  it  when  the 
bosses'  bacKS  are  turned? 

A. — Well,  there  are  some  things  that  can  be  done 
better  when  the  boss'  back  is  turned,  because  the  boss 
is  really  the  saboteur.  Now,  if  you  will  permit  me,  I 
will  explain  what  sabotage  is. 

Q. — Oh,  no.  The  boss  probably  is  a  saboteur.  We 
are  not  here  defending  the  boss.  The  boss  might  be 
prosecuted  for  it, 

A. — The  boss  is  never  here,  being  tried  here,  for 
doing  it. 

Q. — Now,  that  book,  at  any  rate,  you  advised  to 
be  translated  into  the  Finnish  language  as  late  aas 
August,  1917,  didn't  you? 

A. — Yes,  there  were  many  splendid  things  in  that 
Pouget's  sabotage. 


180  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Yes,  but  you  did  not  ask  to  have  any  part  of 
it  eliminated  before  it  was  translated,  did  you? 

A. — No,  I  did  not. 

Q. — Now  you  said  this,  did  you  not,  in  a  letter  to 
Socialist  Publishing  Bureau — that  is  the  one  up  at 
Duluth,  the  leading  spirit  of  which  is  this  man 
Laukki. 

A. — Yes,  that  is  the  one, 

Q. — You  say,  as  to  which  one  you  would  recom- 
mend— "In  reply  to  your  letter,  I  am  sending  you 
under  separate  cover  shipment  of  our  literature 
which  will  be  of  use  to  you  in  this  work.  As  to  which 
I  will  recommend,  will  say  that  I  think  ''Sabotage" 
by  Pouget,  and  "The  Advancing  Proletariat"  by 
Woodruff,  are  two  things  that  are  fine  and  books  that 
should  be  translated."  You  think  they  are  excep- 
tionally fine  books,  do  you? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  I  do. 

Q. — You  thought  so  then.  Now,  from  time  to  time 
information  came  to  you  from  members  of  the  or- 
ganization as  to  the  practice  of  rather  violent  forms 
of  sabotage,  didn't  it? 

As, — Yes,  I  presume  there  has.  I  don't  know  what 
you  have  in  mind. 

Q. — Now,  can  you  recall  where  you  have  ever 
used  your  influence,  put  down  anything  in  writing  at 
all  against  actions  such  as  has  been  suggested  to  you 
from  the  membership  along  those  lines? 

A. — No,  I  don't  recall  of  any  particular  thing  in 
writing,  although  I  do  recall  speaking  on  many  oc- 
casions against  what  you  refer  to  as  sabotage. 

Q. — Were  you  speaking  in  public? 

A. — Yes,  in  public. 

Q. — Oh,  yes;  yes. 

A. — And  also  in  private. 

Q. — I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  an  instance 
of  what  appears  to  be  rather  strong  sabotage,  in  a 
letter  from  James  S.  Koen. 

A.— Yes. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  181 

Q. — To  you,  along  right  in  1916,  in  which  he 
says: 

"I  have  managed  to  get  up  a  small  fund  for  the 
iron  miners  of  Northern  Minnesota,  and  will  continue 
to  do  so  until  the  strike  is  settled.  I  sure  feel  for  them 
poor  devils,  for  they  have  got  a  hard  outfit  to  fight. 
That  ore  is  a  hard  thing  to  sab.'' 

That  means  to  sabotage  ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — "It  is  a  pity  that  it  is  not  in  the  oil  industry 
instead  of  ore  industry,  for  the  oil  would  be  so  easy 
to  handle  on  account  of  the  money  being  tied  up  in 
a  bunch  such  as  an  oil  rig,  used  for  filling  the  well 
and  cleaning  out  and  so  on.  Next  comes  the  small  oil 
tanks,  and  then  comes  the  big  55,000  barrel  tanks. 
Every  once  in  a  while,  lightning  strikes  those  big 
tanks,  and  at  the  price  of  oil  it  amounts  up  to  the 
hundred  thousand  mark  or  more,  at  the  present  price 
of  oil,  so  you  see  how  easy  the  oil  industry  would  be 
handled  if  the  fellows  would  organize."  Now,  did 
you  take  that  as  a  suggestion  that  sabotage  in  the 
mind  of  that  party  was  the  blowing  up  of  oil  tanks? 

A. — Not  necessarily. 

Q. — Well,  necessarily  or  otherwise,  do  you  think 
that  is  what  he  had  in  mind? 

A. — That  is  what  he  had  meant  probably,  but  it 
is  not  what  I  mean. 

Q. — Well,  but  you  did  not  write  and  tell  him  that 
that  was  not  sabotage,  did  you? 

A. — I  don't  know,  I  am  sure,  what  I  may  have 
said  to  him. 

Q. — I  call  your  attention  to  your  answer  of  Aug- 
ust 11th,  1916,  it  is  very  brief.  See  whether  you  find 
any  fault  with  him  for  suggesting  that  form  of  sabot- 
age.   (Handing  witness  letter.) 

A. — I  don't  see  anything  about  it  at  all. 

Q. — Don't  see  anything  about  it? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Well  then,  in  all  probability  that  particular 
I.  W.  W.  went  on  with  the  idea  in  his  mind  that  it 


182  TESTIMONY  OF 

would  be  all  right  to  burn  up  oil  tanks  and  derricks 
and  things  of  that  kind  ? 

A. — I  never  heard  of  anything  put  into  operation. 
It  would  have  been  tough  on  Rockefeller  if  it  had. 

Q, — Wellj  he  probably  had  that  idea  in  his  mind? 

A. — He  might  have  thought  that. 

Q. — You  did  not  do  anything  to  correct  that  im- 
pression either,  did  you? 

A. — Evidently  not,  from  that  letter. 

Q. — In  what  forms  to  your  knowledge,  has  sabot- 
age ever  been  employed  in  the  harvest  fields? 

A. — I  don't  think  sabotage  has  ever  been  employ- 
ed in  the  harvest  fields  in  any  form. 

Q. — It  has  never  been  done,  at  any  rate,  in  the 
form  of  simply  stopping  at  the  end  of  a  certain  length 
of  time,  either  eight  hours  or  ten  hours,  or  anything 
of  that  kind?  You  have  never  known  of  that? 

A. — Well,  it  is  possible  that  such  action  has  been 
taken,  which  would  be  direct  action. 

Q. — But  you  do  not  recall  of  that  kind  of  sabot- 
age? 

A. — If  that  is  what  you  call  sabotage,  there  pro- 
bably has  been  instances  of  it. 

Q. — Now  you  say  you  never  knew  of  any  sabot- 
age being  employed  in  the  harvest  fields.  I  want  to 
call  your  attention  to  a  letter  of  August  22nd,  1916, 
written  to  S.  Bromberg,  in  which  you  say: 

''We  have  carefully  talked  over  the  different  met- 
hods that  you  suggested."  Now,  those  were  some 
methods  of  sabotage,  were  they  not? 

A. — Possibly. 

Q. — "We  have  talked  them  over  with  organizers 
Flynn,  Ettor,  Little  and  others  before  they  left  for  the 
Iron  Range.  Every  organizer  I  think,  realizes  that 
direct  action,  sabotage,  and  intermittent  strikes  are 
fighting  weapons  of  the  I.  W.  W.  All  these  methods 
and  some  others  were  used  as  successfully  at  the 
Lawrence — "  was  that  where  the  I.  W.  W.  strike 
was? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  183 

A. — That  is  where  the  biggest  strike  that  the  I. 
W.  W.  ever  had,  took  place. 

Q. — ''practiced  them  at  Lav/rence  as  they  are 
now  being  used  by  400  in  the  harvest  fields/*  Do  you 
remember  of  saying  that? 

A. — Why,  it  seemxS  that  I  did  say  it. 

Q. — Well,  at  the  time  of  writing  that  letter  you 
did  have  a  notion  that  they  were  practicing  sabot- 
age in  the  harvest  fields,  didn't  you? 

A. — Evidently.  I  don't  recall  the  letter. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  a  letter  that  v/as  written 
to  Vincent  St.  John,  that  I  asked  him  about  when  on 
the  witness  stand  and  he  said  that  he  did  not  answer 
it;  it  was  answered  by  you;  a  letter  written  by  E. 
Krause,  secretary  of  one  of  the  branches. 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  it. 

Q. — To  refresh  your  recollection,  a  letter  written 
August  13th,  1914,  to  Vincent  St.  John,  in  which 
this  statement  was  made :     ''The  stiffs" — 

A.— 1914? 

Q. — 1914.  That  was  about  the  time  he  went  out 
of  office,  wasn't  it? 

A. — No,  he  didn't  get  out  of  office  until  January 
1st,  1915. 

Q — So  as  to  relieve  any  doubt,  this  is  your  an- 
wer,  isn't  it,  to  Krause?  (Handing  witness  docu- 
ment. 

A. — I  can't  say  whether  I  dictated  that  letter  or 
not. 

Q. — Well  you  were  general-  organizer  at  that 
time,  were  you  not? 

A. — I  was.  yes,  but  my  initials  are  not  in  the 
corner.   I  don't  know. 

Q.- — Well,  maybe  you  will  remember  it  when  I 
read  it.  "The  stiffs  of  this  part  of  the  country  are 
certaily  raising  hell  as  more  than  seventeen  threshers 
burned  up  around  here  and  the  farmers  offered  a 
thousand  dollars  for  the  guilty  persons  who  are  sup- 
posed to  have  put  matches  in  the  grain,  but  up  to  this 
time  they  have  met  with  no  success.    As  a  result  of 


184  TESTIMONY  OF 

burning  these  machines,  the  insurance  was  cancelled 
and  the  insurance  companies  were  hard  hit,  so  you 
see  it  worked  like  a  two-edged  sword/' 

Now,  do  you  remember  that  letter? 

A. — I  do  not. 

Q. — You  don't  remember  that? 

A. — No.  I  was  not  in  office  at  that  time.  That  is 
1914. 

Q. — Yes,  I  appreciate  that,  but  you  were  general 
organizer  at  that  time,  and  of  course  Vincent  St. 
John  did  say  that  you  had  the  letter.  I  might  be  mis- 
taken about  that. 

A. — I  don't  think  I  was  in  Chicago — my  initials 
are  not  in  the  corner. 

Q. — If  you  don't  recall  it,  you  understand  that  to 
be  the  information,  anyway,  that  was  given  at  tha.t 
time, — general  organizer,  of  the  destruction  by  mem- 
bers of  the  organization,  of  threshers? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  this  fellow  had  an  aberation. 

Q. — You  think  he  had  an  aberation? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Well,  anyway,  whether  or  not  he  had,  that  is 
what  he  had  in  his  mind? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — The  destruction  of  fifty  threshers,  burned 
up,  and  it  is  written  from  Portland. 

A. — From  where? 

Q. — From  Portland.  I  suppose  you  would  not 
know, — 

A. — There  is  no  name,  no  signature — 

Q. — Whether  anybody  ever  wrote,  correcting  this 
aberation  that  this  fellow  had  in  his  mind,  to  get 
him  on  the  right  track  ? 

A. — What  I  mean  to  say  is  that  in  my  opinion 
there  never  was  that  many  threshers  burned  up  out 
there. 

Q. — Exactly,  but  listen  to  this  man — 

A. — Who  answered  it? 

Q. — Well,  that  is  "General  Organizer,"  as  you 
see,  isn't  it? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  185 

A. — Well,  I  was  general  organizer  at  that  time. 

Q. — You  don't  think  anybody  wrote  it  and  put  it 
over  your  title?    Anybody  else? 

A. — It  is  possible. 

Q. — Then  you  think  you  wrote  it,  don't  you? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q. — You  don't  think  you  wrote  it? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q.— Why? 

A. — Because  I  don't  think  I  was  in  Chicago  at 
that  time. 

Q. — Well,  this,  of  course,  don't  show  that  it  was 
written  from  Chicago  exactly,  as  far  as  I  see. 

A. — This  is  only  a  carbon  copy,  it  was  addressed 
to  Chicago. 

Q. — Was  there  any  other  general  organizer  in  the 
organization  at  that  time? 

A. — No.  I  was  the  general  organizer. 

Q. — And  whoever  wrote  it  said  this,  didn't  he: 
"Note  the  agitation  in  that  section,  and  trust  same 
will  get  results."   Did  you  notice  that  last  sentence? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — By  the  way,  something  was  said  about  Vin- 
cent St.  John  being  on  a  vacation  about  that  time. 
Do  you  remember  of  relieving  him  at  headquarters 
here  about  that  time? 

A.— St.  John  went  to  New  York,  I  think. 

Q. — About  that  time  ? 

A. — Well,  I  wouldn't  say  about  that  time,  but  I 
acted  as  general  secretary-treasurer  during  his  ab- 
sence.   What  time  it  was  I  don't  remember. 

Q. — Might  have  been  this  very  time? 

A. — I  wouldn't  say  it  might  have  been;  I  say  I 
don't  remember  what  the  date  was.  It  is  easy  enough 
to  find  out.  You  will  see  what  date  he  appeared  in 
New  York  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion there.  Further,  the  letter  says:  ''See  that  the 
agitation  is  being  carried  on  and  hope  it  gets  results." 
That  don't  say  anything  about  hoping  that  these 
threshing  machines  would  be  burned. 


186  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — You  might  be  referring  to  some  other  agi- 
tation ? 

A. — Oh,  it  is  possible, 

Q. — It  is  ambiguous  if  that  is  so? 

A. — Very  much  so. 

Q. — Might  be  taken  by  the  writer  of  that  other 
letter  as  his  endorsing  the  agitating  the  threshing 
machines? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  that  in  answer  to  that 
Miller,  one  of  the  defendants  here,  in  which  he  made 
some  suggestion  about  activity  in  Canada  and  old 
Mexico?  Getting  the  organization  in  a  position,  if 
necessary,  to  go  into  old  Mexico  to  operate  the  or- 
ganization from  old  Mexico,  or  from  Canada  if  things 
became  too  hot  in  the  United  States? 

A. — I  believe  I  do  recall  such  a  letter. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  that  in  answer  to  that 
letter,  a  letter  was  written  by  you  Aug-ust  24th,  1917, 
after  the  usual  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of 
money,  in  which  you  say:  'T  note  your  suggestions 
as  to  working  from  the  Canadian  and  Mexican  side, 
in  case  the  G.  O.''— what  is  the  ''G.  O."? 

A.— The  General  Office. 

Q. — " — is  closed  down,  and  v/ill  say  that  I  am 
afraid  the  censorship  they  are  sure  to  establish  will 
militate  against  that  arrangement.''  Do  you  remem- 
ber that? 

A. — I  don't  remember  it  in  detail.  I  suppose  that 
is  the  letter  I  wrote. 

Q. — ''we  think  the  underground  loute  will  be 
better."  Now,  what  is  the  underground  route? 

A. — Well,  the  underground  route,  is  organizing 
under  ground. 

Q.— Secretly? 

A. —  Secretly,  yes. 

Q.— So  that  the  government  would  not  know 
what  you  were  doing? 

A. — So  that  there  would  not  be  any  one  except- 
ing the  workers  themselves. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  187 

Q. — On  August  24th,  1917,  it  was  your  thought 
that  the  underground  route,  this  secret  route  of  car- 
rying on  your  organization,  would  be  better? 

A. — Carrying  on  the — 

Q. — Doing  it  right  here  in  Chicago  instead  of 
going  to  old  Mexico  or  Canada? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — But  to  do  it  underground? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. —  (Reading.)  ''In  fact,  to  tell  you  the  truth, 
we  have  already  taken  steps,  and  are  now  perfecting 
same,  to  run  the  affairs  of  the  organization  via  the 
U.  G.  route,  if  it  became  necessary."  Had  you  done 
so? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  I  think  so. 

Q. — Had  taken  precautions  at  headquarters  and 
throughout  the  organization? 

A. — We  were  making  some  towards  that  end. 

Q. — Well,  you  say  that  you  were  perfecting  plans. 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — That  was  a  long  time  before  the  raids  were 
made. 

A. — Oh,  there  had  been  many,  many  raids. 

Q. — But  I  am  speaking  of  the  general  raid. 

A. — There  had  been  so  many  raids  that  this  step 
had  become  a  necessity.  Supplies  destroyed,  mem- 
bership books  destroyed,  men  thrown  in  jail  without 
warrant  and  without  charge.  It  was  becoming  neces- 
sary. 

Q. — But  it  was  before  the  September  raid? 

A. — Oh,  yes,  the  September  raid  was  later. 

Q. — Now,  a  suggestion  was  made  to  you  by  Jack 
Sheehan  at  one  time,  in  a  letter  of  August,  1917,  was 
it  not,  that  he  did  not  think  that  this  sabotage 
literature  ought  to  be  used  by  the  organization.  Do 
you  remember  that? 

A. — Yes,  I  remember. 

Q. — Jack  Sheehan  wrote  to  you  from  Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania  ? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 


188  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Do  you  remember  that  you  said  in  answer  to 
him — 

"I  don't  understand  how  you  are  going  to  ignore 
the  term  ''sabotage"  in  your  educational  campaign 
if  you  use  I.  W.  W.  literature.  Every  leaflet,  every 
pamphlet  and  the  song  books  are  full  of  reference  to 
that  great  weapon.  There  is  not  an  issue  of  the 
paper  that  it  does  not  appear  many  references  to 
sabotage  As  Scarlett  would  say,  it  is  like  the  side- 
walks, all  over,  you  can't  get  away  from  it." 

Do  you  remember  answering  it  that  way? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  I  wrote  that. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  of  making  a  report  to  the 
9th  Conv.ention  while  you  were  General  Organizer— 
a  written  report? 

A. — Yes,  I  made  a  report  to  the  9th  Convention. 

Q. — Now,  I  am*  asking  you  along  the  line  of  this 
suggestion  in  the  literature  of  the  organization,  of 
doing  things  behind  the  law.  I  want  you  to  under- 
stand that  I  am  still  on  that  subject.  Do  you  remem- 
ber in  that  report  of  saying  this :  "While  the  army  of 
the  unemployed  is  growing  by  leaps,  the  masters  of 
bread  are  preparing  to  ship  to  Europe,  this  with  the 
connivance  of  the  United  States  government,  which 
has  under  way  plans  to  subsidize  the  ships  for  that 
purpose,  no  single  thought  is  given  to  the  peaceful 
army  of  production.  Millions  are  appropriated  for 
the  army  of  destruction,  and  not  a  cent  to  provide 
for  or  care  for  the  life  of  the  producers.  It  is  up  to 
the  workers  to  meet  with  grim  determination  the  sit- 
uation that  presents  itself.  Food,  clothing  and  shelter 
are  essential  to  life.  Let  the  message  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
be  'Get  it.'  If  you  have  got  to  take  pick  axes  and 
crowbars  and  go  to  the  granaries  and  warehouses 
and  help  yourselves,  rather  than  crowd  around  city 
halls,  Capitols  or  empty  squares,  go  to  the  market 
places  and  water  fronts  where  the  food  is  being  ship- 
ped, confiscate  it  if  you  have  the  power." 

Now,  do  you  remember  making  that  statement — 
making  that  recommendation  in  your  report? 


-WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  189 

A. — Yes,  I  made  that  statement  and  I  want  to  tell 
you  where  I  got  that  from,  from  one  of  Abraham 
Lincoln's  messages. 

Q. — Oh,  dear  me.   Is  that  a  fact? 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — What  message  is  that? 

A. — ^Well,  this  is  a  message  that  he  delivered  dur- 
ing the  Civil  War  when  the  profiteers  had  run  the 
prices  of  foodstuffs  up,  600  or  800  per  cent,  he 
made  practically  the  same  thing  as  I  have  set  forth  in 
that  report. 

Q. — Don't  you  think  that  Abraham  Lincoln  would 
turn  over  in  his  grave,  if  he  heard  any  such  statement 
as  that  made  by  him? 

A. — I  do  not,  that  is  excepting  in  commendation 
of  it.  That  is  what  he  said:  ''Take  your  pick  axes 
and  crow-bars  and  go  to  the  warehouses  and  help 
yourselves." 

Q. — What  was — you  say  that  was  during  the 
Civil  War? 

A. — Yes,  sir;  when  the  profiteers  had  run  the 
prices  of  foodstuffs  up  so  high  that  the  workers 
could  not  buy  it.  And  remember,  that  this  was  made 
in  1914,  when  unemployment  was  such  that  working 
men  could  not  get  food,  and  I  do  not  believe  in  work- 
ing men  starving  nor,  in  starving  when  the  food  is 
piled  up  in  cold  storage  houses  and  in  warehouses 
and  in  the  packing  houses.  What  is  it  there  for? 
Who  put  it  there?  Does  the  working  man?  It  is  the 
working  man's,  let  them  eat  it.  They  are  entitled  to 
the  best  to  eat;  entitled  the  best  to  wear  and  entitled 
to  be  the  best  housed  possible,  and  educated  the  best, 
bcause  they  produce  all. 

Q. — I  just  wanted  to  get  your  views  on  it. 

A. — Well,  that  is  my  views. 

Q. — I  believe  you  answered  something  to  counsel 
to  the  effect  that  no  stand  had  been  taken  by  the  or- 
ganization against  registration.   That  is  true,  is  it? 

A. — Yes,  as  an  organization.    That  is  true. 

Q. — Well,  now,  what  do  you  mean  by  that,  that 


190  TESTIMONY  OF 

they  did  not  simply  meet  and  pass  a  resolution,  that 
the  membership  of  the  organization  go  out  openly 
and  obey  the  registration  law?  That  is  what  you 
mean  when  you  say  that  it  took  no  steps? 

A. — That  is  what  it  means. 

Q. — Was  there  any  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the 
membership  that  were  informed  as  to  the  fact  that  a 
general  organization  was  opposed  to  any  member  of 
the  organization  performing  any  military  service  if, 
by  hook  or  crook,  or  any  means,  he  could  avoid  it? 

A. — I  think  it  was  pretty  generally  understood 
among  the  membership  that  there  was  no  desire  to 
have  them  become  soldiers;  but  that  it  was  also 
thoroughly  understood  among  the  membership  that 
they  would  work  in  the  industries  and  that  they 
would  deliver  service. 

Q. — Let  us  see  if  this  was  not  taking  a  stand  on 
that  question :  In  the  first  place,  it  had  been  made  a 
matter  of  record  in  the  organization  very  early — 
some  years  ago,  had  it  not,  that  any  member  of  the 
organization  that  enlisted  in  the  military  forces  of 
any  nation  would  be  expelled  from  membership? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  know  that  that  resolution  was 
ever  passed  in  the  I.  W.  W.,  but  it  has  been  passed 
in  many  trade  unions.  The  United  Mine  Workers, 
for  instance.  I  recall  the  time  that  I  very  nearly  be- 
came arrested  for  suggesting  that  the  United  Mine 
Workers  would  go  on  strike  if  war  was  declared 
against  Mexico. 

Q. — Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Haywood,  men 
were  expelled,  were  they  not — absolutely  expelled 
from  the  organization  for  joining  the  Canadian  forces 
to  begin  with,  and  assisting  England  in  the  carrying 
on  of  the  War  with  Germany? 

A. — Well,  when  you  say  absolutely  expelled,  you 
don't  know  what  you  are  talking  about. 

Q. — I  would*.be  glad  to  be  put  aright? 

A. — Well,  I  know,  and  that  is  what  I  am  going 
to  try  and  do.  Expulsion  from  the  organization  re- 
quires that  a  man  shall  have  a  hearing.  For  instance, 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  191 

a  case  is  taken  up  in  a  branch  or  in  a  recruiting 
union.  The  records  are  kept  and  either  side  has  an 
appeal  from  the  action  of  the  Union — 

Q. — Now,  can't  I  set  you  right  on  a  matter? 

A.— Well,  all  right. 

Q. — Don't  you  adopt  as  early,  perhaps,  your,  as 
your  first  convention  practically,  this:  "Resolution  as 
adopted  at  the  first  convention  of  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World  relative  to  militarism  as  a  part 
of  the  organic  law  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World,  automatically  dismisses  from  membership 
anyone  joining  the  militia"? 

A. — Well,  that  ''automatic"  means  that  a  man 
changes  his  vocation.   He  is  not  a  wage  worker. 

Q. — Well,  then,  it  b'elieves,  doesn't  it — 

A. —  (Interrupting.)  But  those  charges  that  have 
been  preferred  are  still  a  matter  of  appeal  to  the 
general  executive  board  and  to  the  general  conven- 
tion. Then,  if  affirmative  action  is  taken,  he  is  ex- 
pelled. 

Q. — But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  was  the 
plan  of  the  organization,  was  it  not,  that  they  be- 
came, they  ceased  automatically  to  become  members 
if  they  joined  the  army  or  the  navy  of  any  nation? 

A. — Well,  that  is  the  way  that  it  should  have 
been,  but  I  don't  recall  that  that  practice  was  ever 
carried  out. 

Q. — Now,  following  that,  men  were  dropped  out, 
were  they  not? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — For  instance  there  were  members,  R.  Jarvis, 
in  the  Canadian  Army,  H.  Latuga  and  John  some- 
body— after  war  broke  out  between  England  and 
Germany,  they  were  expelled  and  you  received  infor- 
mation of  that  from  Canada,  didn't  you? 

A. — Well,  I  cannot  remember  that.  They  are 
recited  in  the  bulletins. 

Q. — There  is  not  any  doubt  about  it. 

A. — But  if  you  have  taken  that  from  the  bulletins, 
that  is  correct. 


192  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — There  were  others, — for  instance,  expelled 
members,  as  shown  by  the  reports  of  Edmonton, 
Canada,  where  A.  Story,  V.  Dennis,  Simpson,  F. 
Riley,  and  F.  Ashton,  were  expelled  on  that  account, 
do  you  remember  that? 

A. — No ;  I  don't  remember  it. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  of  a  man  in  Des  Moines — 
that  is,receiving  information  from  Des  Moines,  from 
Local  577,  to  the  effect  that  Sidney  Allen,  Card  num- 
ber 18744,  having  joined  the  British  Army  regarding 
a  motion  by  some  members  from  among  the  member- 
ship, and  was  dropped? 

A. — If  you  are  taking  that  from  a  bulletin,  it  is 
correct. 

Q. — You  do  not  doubt  it,  do  you? 

A.— No. 

Q. — That  was  the  policy? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  your  letter  of  May  3,  1917, 
to  Frank  P.  Walsh  with  respect  to  this  matter  of  the 
action  of  the  organization  concerning  members  of  the 
organization  who  joined  military  forces? 

A. — No,  I  do  not. 

Q. — In  any  country? 

A. — Not  in  detail.  I  remember  that  I  wrote  Frank 
Walsh  sometime  along  about  th'at  period. 

Q. — And  you  say  in  one  paragraph,  you  say:  No 
definite  steps  had  been  taken  towards  any  military 
program. 

A.— What  date  is  that? 

Q._May  3,  1917. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — ''I  might  mention,  however,  that  during  the 
European  war  all  members  of  this  organization  who 
have  enlisted  on  either  side  of  the  conflict  have  been 
expelled  from  the  organization:" 

A.— Well,  I  told  you  that. 

Q. — Well,  I  understood  you  to  tell  counsel  that 
that  had  not  been  done  by  the  organization? 

A. — Not  at  all. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  193 

Q. — Oh,  they  have  all  been  expelled? 

A. — All  been  expelled  until  this  country  went 
into  war. 

Q. — Well,  did  you  make  any  exception  in  this 
letter — you  say  that  ''during  the  European  war  all 
members  of  the  organization  who  have  enlisted  on 
either  side  of  the  conflict  have  been  expelled  from 
our  organization.  What  our  steps  will  be  in  the  event 
of  members  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World 
being  conscripted,  has  not  yet  been  determined."  I 
take  it  that — I  take  that  as  a  fair  inference  if  they 
voluntarily  entered  the  service  they  would  be  ex- 
pelled.  Is  that  w^hat  you  have  in  mind? 

A.- — No,  sir.  We  have  got  men  in  the  service  now 
who  are  sending  their  dues  from  France. 

Q. — Yes.  "While  being  opposed" — let  us  see  if 
you  did  not  mean  that  the  same  thing  would  apply  to 
anybody  that  enlisted  in  this  country.  ''While  being 
opposed  to  the  Imperial  Government  of  Germany,  we 
are  likewise  opposed  the  industrial  oligarchy  of  this 
country"  ? 

A. — You  know  it. 

Q. — Instead  of  fighting  to  continue  them,  we  will 
always  be  found  fighting  in  our  small  way  for  the 
restitution  of  the  rights  of  the  working  people." 

A. — And  the  restitution  of  the  wealth  of  the 
people. 

Q. — Did  you  mean  in  that  letter  to  Walsh  that 
you  would  be  fighting  the  Industrial  Oligarchy  if  it 
went  into  vvar — that  is,  if  this  country  went  into 
war? 

A. — It  is  a  good  thing  you  changed  that. 

Q.— Why— 

A. — Because  I  was  going  to  ask  you  if  the  Indus- 
trial Oligarchy  of  this  country  was  in  this  war,  was 
in  war?   Is  that  what  you  meant? 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  get  your  meaning. 

A. — It  is  what  you  said. 

Q. — Well,  this  country  is  in  v/ar,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  but  you  changed  it. 


194  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — You  mean  that  this  country  was  the  indus- 
trial oligarchy  now,  in  that  letter,  didn't  you  ? 

A.— Well,  Tdon't  say  that. 

Q. — You  don't  say  that? 

A.— No. 

Q. — ''While  we  are  opposed  to  the  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment of  Germany" — "we  are  likewise  opposed  to 
the  Industrial  Oligarchy  of  this  country." 

A. — Of  this  country,  that  is  right. 

Q. — That  meant  the  government  of  this  country? 

A. — Not  necessarily,  unless  you  want  to  call  it 
so. 

Q. — Well,  my  desires  don't  cut  any  figure.  Now, 
let  us  see.  In  that  Solidarity  article  of  July  28,  1917, 
that  statement  was  made,  was  it  not,  that  any  mem- 
ber of  the  organization  that  became  a  member  of  the 
military  or  the  naval  forces  of  the  United  States 
would  be  expelled? 

A. — Well,  I  am  not  responsible  for  that  article. 

Q. — Well,  aren't  you  responsible  for  it? 

A. — No,  I  am  not. 

Q. — Didn't  you  see  it  before  it  went  out  to  the 
membership? 

A.— I  didn't. 

Q. — Didn't  you  tell  Frank  Little  you  had  seen  it? 

A. — Why,  I  saw  it.   It  had  been  published. 

Q. — As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  wrote  Frank  Little 
the  day  before  it  had  been  published,  didn't  you  7 

A. — I  don't  remember. 

Q. — Didn't  you  write  Frank  Little  on  the  27th  of 
July,  and  this  did  not  appear  in  Solidarity  until  the 
next  day,  the  28th? 

A. — It  probably  had  already  gone  to  press. 

Q. — But  you  saw  the  article  then  before  the  pap- 
ers v/ent  out  among  the  membership? 

A.— Yes,  I  did. 

Q. — And  saw  the  statement? 

A.— Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  wish  you  would  stick  to 
the  facts — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  195 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — You  remember  this:  ''Mem- 
bers joining  the  military  forces  of  any  nation  have 
been  expelled  from  the  organization." 

A. — I  remember  that. 

Q. — Is  that  inclusive  of  the  United  States? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q.— Isn't  it? 

A.— No. 

Q.— Isn't  this  official? 

A. — Yes,  but  the  I.  W.  W.  had  not  expelled  the 
members  of  this  nation. 

Q. — I  have  already  catechised  Mr.  Miller  relating 
to  the  action  of  the  General  Executive  Board  along 
the  latter  part  of  June  and  July  after  Little  had 
made  some  strenuous  demand  to  have  some  action 
by  the  Board.     You  remember  that  question? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  did  the  Board  pass  a 
resolution  in  favor  of  drawing  up  a  statement  on  the 
subject  of  war? 

A. — Such  a  resolution  is  recorded,  yest 

Q. — Such  a  resolution  is  recorded  that  it  passed? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  attended  those  meetings  of  the  General 
Executive  Board? 

A. — I  did,  I  attended  part  of  themx,  part,  a  few,  a 
very  few,  and  only  a  part  of  the  few. 

Q. — You  are  a  member,  ex-officio,  are  you  not? 

A. — I  am. 

Q._Of  that  board? 

Q. — Now,  was  a  statement  drawn  up  ? 

A. — A  statement  was  drawn  up. 

Q. — Where  is  it? 

A. — You  have  it  here  on  file. 

Q. — Is  this  it    (submitting  witness  statement)  ? 

A. — This  was  the  statement  that  was  presented, 
I  think  to  the  executive  board  by  Frank  Little. 

Q. — Was  it  drav/n  up  by  the  executive  board  in 
pursuance  of  the  resolution  that  one  should  be 
drawn  up? 


196  TESTIMONY  OF 

.  A, — No,  sir. 

Q. — Was  one  ever  drawn  up  by  the  executive 
board? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — In  pursuance  of  that  resolution? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — You  said  one  had  been  drav^n  up,  didn't  you, 
in  writing,  to  Little? 

A. — No,  I  did  not. 

Q. — Well,  then  I  can't  read  the  English  language. 
Now,  to  get  at  this,  so  that  the  thing  will  be  perfectly 
understood, — this  meeting  was  held  by  the  general 
executive  board  along  in  the  early  part  of  July? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — A  motion  was  passed  that  a  statement  should 
be  drawn  up? 

A.— Yes. 

Q.— And  on  the  24th  of  July,  Little  had  left  Chi- 
cago and  had  gone  back  to  Butte,  hadn't  he? 

A. — Not,  not  gone  back.  He  had  gone  to  Butte. 

Q. — Had  he  come  from  Butte? 

A. — No.    He  had  come  from  Arizona. 

Q. — Anyhow  he  had  gone  to  Butte? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  did  write  you  personally,  saying: 
"When  will  the  statement  of  the  Board  on  war  be 
out."  Now,  that  was  the  statement  that  that  resolu- 
tion referred  to,  wasn't  it?  The  statement  that  the 
board  was  to  draw  up? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — It  should  be  sent  out  to  the  members  as  soon 
as  possible.  Let  me  hear  from  you  soon.  Give  me  the 
news  of  the  movement.  That  was  the  anti-war  move- 
ment? 

A.— Why? 

Q._Wasn't  it? 

A. — Why,  I  don't  think  so.  It  was  the  general  I. 
W.  W.  movement. 

Q. — You  answered  that  July  27th,  three  days 
afterwards:  'T.  H.  Little,  Butte,  Montana.   Yours  of 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  197 

the  24th  at  hand." — asking  about  this  statement  of 
the  board — "In  regard  to  the  statement  of  the  Board 
on  war,  will  say  as  to  the  statement  in  this  week's 
Solidarity — "  now,  that  is  the  statement  that  I  have 
read  from? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — " — by  the  editor,  it  would  be  superfluous  to 
publish  the  statement  of  the  Board."  Now,  didn't 
you  mean  to  say  in  that  letter  that  a  statement  had 
been  drawn  up  ? 

A. — How  could  I  say  it  when  the  statement  had 
not  been  drawn  up  and  I  knew  it. 

Q.- — Well,  I  don't  know,  I  am  sure. 

A. — Well,  there  had  been  no  statement  drawn  up. 
I  think  you  have  anothei  letter  over  there  from  Little 
in  reply  to  this  letter. 

Q. — I  have  got  several  there.  Are  there  any  that 
you  want  to  call  attention  to  ? 

A. — Yes,  there  is  a  letter  in  reply  to  this  one. 

Q. — Let  us  get  through  with  this  one  first:  "Will 
say  after  the  statement  in  this  week's  Solidarity  by 
the  editor  it  would  be  superfluous  to  publish  a  state- 
ment of  the  Board  as  it  is  practically  the  same." 

Now,  Mr.  Hayv/ood,  will  you  tell  me  how  one 
thing  can  be  like  another  when  that  other  thing  has, 
when  that  other  thing  is  not  in  existence  ? 

A. — V/ell,  it  was  not  in  existence.  Let  me  see  that 
letter. 

Q. — You  had  not  made  a  comparison — 

A. — No,  I  want  that  letter. 

Q. — Here  are  these  letters.  You  find  the  one  that 
you  want.  You  mean  the  one  that  has  been  referred 
to  here  so  many  times  that  now  is  the  time  to  keep 
cool? 

A. — No,  sir,  no. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  was  the  reply  to  that 
letter,  he  said,  from  Little  to  him. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Do  you  find  it?  Isn't  that 
the  Little-Haywood  file? 

A. — Yes,  but  I  don't  find  the  reply  to  this  one. 


198  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Well,  do  you  want  to  make  some  statement 
about  what  was  in  it? 

A. — I  would  like  the  letter  from  Frank  Little. 

Q. — We  will  try  to  have  it  hunted  up  for  you  a 
little  later  if  it  is  not  there.  His  reply  goes  on  to 
state  that  this  thing  itself,  that  it  is  not  official. 

A._Yes. 

Q. — Oh,  yes. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Was  not  official  and  was  not  satisfactory? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  you  thought  it  was? 

A. — I  didn't  think  it  was. 

Q. — You  thought  it  would  suffice  instead  of  pub- 
lishing the  statement  made  up  by  the  Board,  didn't 
you? 

A. — Well,  I  said  in  this  letter  which  was  by  the 
way,  not  my  letter — 

Q.— Who  wrote  it? 

A. — ^that  it  was  practically  the  same. 

Q.— Who  wrote  it? 

A. — Well,  you  can  blame  it  on  me.  My  name  was 
signed  to  it. 

Q. — Who  wrote  it.   Let  us  have  the  facts? 

A. — Richard  Brazier. 

Q. — Now,  you  say  that  nevertheless,  none  was 
prepared? 

A. — I  say  that  there  was  no  resolution  prepared. 

Q. — Now,  to  Dan  Buckley,  you  wrote  a  letter  on 
July  7th?  The  very  time  that  the  Board  was  in  ses- 
sion, didn't  you? 

A. — I  don't  know. 

Q. — In  which  you  said  'The  G.  E.  B.in  session  has 
devoted  considerable  time  to  diiscussing  the  old  prop- 
osiition,  and  are  preparing  a  statement  on  same  for 
the  membership." 

Were  they  preparing  a  statement? 

A. — They  were  going  to  prepare  a  statement,  yes. 

Q. — Now,  you  say  ''They  are  preparing."    They 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  199 

were,  right  now.  They  were  in  the  throes  of  giving 
this  thing  birth  at  that  time,  were  they  not? 

A. — Oh,  well,  the  proposition  was  that  they  are — 
dictating  this  letter  out  in  the  other  office  to  a  man 
that  they  were  going  to,  and  then  to  say  that  the  re- 
solution was  passed — if  a  statement  had  been  pre- 
pared it  would  have  been  put  on  the  minutes. 

Q. — I  think  this  is  probably  the  letter  you  have 
reference  to  where  Little  said  that  he  did  not  want  to 
take  that  makeshift  in  Solidarity,  or  something  of 
that  kind.  He  wanted  the  real  thing  that  had  been 
passed  by  the  Board.   Is  that  the  letter? 

A. — Well,  he  doesn't  say  that  he  wants  the  real 
thing  that  has  been  passed  by  the  Board. 

Q. — Doesn't  he  say  that  he  wants  the  Board's 
statement? 

A. — Yes,  he  does. 

Q. — Is  that  the  letter  you  had  reference  to? 

A. — This  is  the  letter  I  had  reference  to,  yes.  This 
was  written,  not  the  night  before  but  two  nights  be- 
fore he  was  murdered. 

Q. — I  believe  you  say  that  this  government's  ex- 
hibit number  287  is  not  what  it  purports  on  its  face 
to  be. 

A.— What  is  that? 

Q. — I  say,  you  say  that  that  exhibit  is  not  what 
it  purports  on  its  face  to  be? 

A. — I  say  that  this  was  not  adopted  by  the  gen- 
eral executive  board. 

Q. — Well,  it  purports  to  have  been. 

A. — Well,  it  was  not. 

Q. — Well,  I  say  it  purports — 

A. — But  I  say  it  was  not. 

Q. — You  can  see  then,  that  it  says,  ''Statement  of 
the  general  executive  board  of  the  L  W.  W.  on  war." 

A. — That  was  the  suggestion  that  was  offered. 

Q. — This  came  from  the  office,  didn't  it? 

A. — I  think  it  did. 

Q. — You  saw  it? 

A.— Yes,  I  did. 


200  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — You  saw  it  before  that  statement  in  Solid- 
arity was  made? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q. — Well,  now,  in  this  statement  it  says,  does  it 
not:  ''We  wish  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the  I,  W.  W.  the  fact  that  any  members  of 
the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  who  becomes  a 
part  of  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  this  or  any 
other  country  where  we  are  organized  cannot  retain 
his  membership  in  this  organization." 

A. — -That  is  what  that  says. 

Q. — That  is  what  that  says? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Still  do  you  mean  to  say  that  when  you  made 
this  statement  to  substantially  the  same  eifect  in 
Solidarity,  that  it  was  not  intended  to  mean  just  ex- 
actly as  it  says  here  in  this  statement? 

A. — What  is  the  question?  ''When  you  made  that 
statement?" 

Q. — Well,  then  the  statement  was  made  in  Solid- 
arity ? 

A. — Well,  that  is  different. 

Q. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  that  was  not  in- 
tended to  have  the  same  meaning  as  this? 

A. — Whatever  that  was  presumed  to  be  sent  out 
was  not  my  statement.  It  was  not  a  statement  of  the 
Executive  Board. 

Q.— Whose  was  it,  Ralph  Chaplin's? 

A. — Ralph  Chaplin's. 

Q._And  only  Ralph's? 

A. — Only  Ralph's,  as  that  letter  of  Frank  Little 
shows. 

Q. — Would  you  think  that  the  members  of  that 
organization  would  conclude  that  there  was  anything 
of  a  suggestion  in  that  to  them,  of  their  position  in 
case  they  joined  the  military  forces  of  the  United 
States? 

A. — I  think  that  they  concluded  that  that  was  the 
editor's  statement  and  only  the  editor's. 

Q. — It  was  in  the  official  paper? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  201 

A. — It  was  in  one  of  the  official  papers? 

Q. — Well,  published  in  the  most  important  of- 
ficial papers,  isn't  it? 

A. — It  was  one  of  the  official  papers;  not  any- 
more important  than  any  of  the  others,  in  proportion 
to  the  membership. 

Q. — Now,  leading  up  to  another  thing,  was  it  not 
also  stated  in  that  statement:  ''We  further  wish  to 
assure  the  membership  that  the  entire  strength  of  the 
organization,  moral,  economic  and  financial  will  be 
used  to  support  any  of  our  members  in  their  refusal 
to  kill  or  be  killed."  Now,  was  not  that  adopted 
formally,  that  proposition,  by  the  G.  E.  B.? 

A. — Yes,  sir.  But  that  was  not  adopted  by  the 
general  executive  board  in  their  session. 

Q. — Well,  now,  you  followed  that  up  with  certain 
assistance  to  slackers,  people  who  had  refused  to 
abide  by  the  laws  of  this  country  in  our  attempt  to 
prepare  ourselves  for  the  war,  didn't  you? 

A. — W^ell,  what  do  you  mean?  What  question 
are  you  asking. 

Q. — If  that  is  not  explicit,  I  will  m.ake  it  more  so. 
I  want  to  ask  you  one  further  matter,  Mr.  Haywood, 
about  the  expulsion  of  members.  Do  you  remember 
receiving  a  letter  from  Pete  McEvoy  in  August,  1917, 
in  which  he  informed  you  that  J.  A.  Waldo  had 
joined  the  army.  Please  make  note  of  same.  He  was 
a  member  of  the  I.  W.  W.  I  have  stricken  him  off  the 
books  here  and  send  you  his  book."  Do  you  remem- 
ber that? 

A. — No,  I  don't.  We  have  a  number  of  cards  over 
there  of  members  that  have  joined. 

Q. — He  had  joined  the  army  of  this  country,  had 
he  not? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Is  this  your  writing  in  that  book? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes. 

Q. — This  is'Phil  Schmidt's,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 


202  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — He  had  been  expelled  by  one  of  the  branch 
organizations  for  joining  the  United  States  Army? 

A. — He  had  been  stricken  from  the  books  there, 
yes. 

Q. — Well,  it  says  ''expelled."  Had  he  been  ex- 
pelled? 

A. — Well,  does  it  say  so?    I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — Well,  let  us  see  what  it  does  say.  Let  us  get 
it  right.  No.  Stricken  him  off  the  books,  you  are 
right. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  is  a  different  thing,  is  it? 

A. — Yes,  sure. 

Q. — He  had  to  give  up  his  card,  didn't  he? 

A. — Others  have  been  sending  in  their  cards  to 
be  kept  until  they  come  back  from  the  war. 

Q. — You  wrote  in  there  in  your  handwriting 
''Joined  Army"? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  filed  it  in  a  filing  case  which  was  en- 
titled, "Expelled  members,"  didn't  you? 

A. — Well,  it  may  in  that  case.  You  will  find  oth- 
ers of  them  where  they  have  joined. 

Q. — There  was  a  case  introduced  in  evidence  here 
of  "Expelled  members"  wasn't  there? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  in  that  was  put  this  card,  along  with 
some  others? 

A. — I  am  not  certain  about  that.    It  may  be. 

Q. — A  letter  from  Weyh,  refers,  does  it  not,  to 
this  fellow  Schmidt,  Phil  Schmidt  and  says,  "En- 
closed you  will  find  the  card  from  Phil  Schmidt.  He 
joined  the  army.  Also  duplicate  card  of  Burton 
Sinclaire."  That  is  right,  is  it? 

A. — I  thought  you  said  a  letter  from  Pete  Mc- 
Evoy? 

Q. — That  seems  to  refer  to  another  man  named 
J.  A.  Waldo? 

A. — Oh,  yes. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  203 

Q. — Who  had  also  joined  the  army  of  the  United 

States? 

A. — Well,  there  is  a  couple  of  thousand  of  them, 
I  judge  that  joined  the  army. 

Q. — And  a  couple  of  thousand  cards  in  the  list 
of  expelled  members? 

A. — Oh,  no.  No,  indeed,  absolutely  none. 

Q. — Not  any  at  all? 

A. — I  don't  think  so.  There  might  be  one  or  two. 
But  I  do  not  believe  there  are  any  others. 

Q. — Now,  I  want  to  find  out  about  this  proposi- 
tion that  you  did  not  go  on  record  on  this  question  of 
registration.  First,  let  me  ask  you  if  this  idea  was  not 
made  to  dominate  in  the  literature  of  the  organiza- 
tion, namely,  that  the  organization  had  put  itself 
squarely  on  record  against  war;  that  it  could  not 
openly  oppose  registration,  but  the  members  of  the 
organization  knew  what  the  attitude  of  the  organiza- 
tion was  on  war,  whether  by  this  country  or  any  other 
country,  and  that  they  themselves  should  handle  the 
problem  as  their  ingenuity  might  suggest.  Now,  isn't 
that  a  fair  statement? 

A. — If  you  wouldn't  ask  such  long,  involved 
questions,  it  might  be  possible  for  me  to  answer  them. 

^. — Well,  we  will  make  it  shorter. 

A. — Do  you  want  then  a  yes  or  no  answer. 

Q. — Let  us  pass  it,  if  you  say  it  is  too  long.  I  will 
get  at  it  in  another  way. 

A.— All  right. 

MK.  VANDERVEER:  Do  you  withdraw  the  ques-- 
tion? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  You  withdraw  the  ques- 
tion? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Yes. 

Q. — Now,  you  remember  of  a  discussion  that 
started  with  Christ  in  1916,  or  not  a  discussion,  but 
raising  this  question  of  the  probable  approach  of  the 
war  by  this  country,  getting  into  the  war,  which 
ended  up  with  that  statement  that  was  passed  at  the 


204  TESTIMONY  OF 

10th  convention  in  December  in  1916,  against  war. 
You  remember  that,  don't  you? 

A. — I  remember  that  statement.  I  don't  remem- 
ber Christ's  connection  with  it. 

Q. — You  don't  remember  Christ's  connection  with 
it? 

A. — No.  I  think  Christ  was  opposed  to  war 
though. 

Q. — Yes.  I  suppose  it  would  be  safe  to  say  so. 
He  was  an  I.  W.  W.  wasn't  he? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q. — Now,  after  the  discussion  of  that  kind,  let  me 
ask  you  if  you  did  not  write  this  letter  on  February 
14th,  1917, — that  is,  the  letter  in  which  there  is  this 
statement  to  John  Pancner :  ''Education  along  indus- 
trial Union  Lines  is  the  best  anti-military  propaganda 
that  I  know  of." 

A. — I  hope  I  did.    That  is  a  good  statement. 

Q. — Now,  you  thought  at  that  time  that  if  you 
would  keep  harping  upon  that  proposition,  as  the 
literature  shows  that  the  organization  did,  that  the 
membership  would  understand  that  every  time  you 
struck  a  lick  for  industrial  unionism  you  were  strik- 
ing a  lick  against  the  preparedness  of  this  country. 
Isn't  that  so  ? 

A. — Well,  now  you  add  that  little  "prepared- 
ness," but  I  did  think,  and  I  do  think  now  that  every 
time  that  a  worker  organizes — educates  himself  and 
unites  with  his  fellow  workers  industrially,  he  is 
striking  a  blow  against  war,  and  I  say  that  now. 

Q. — Now,  isn't  this  really  the  keyword  that  un- 
locks the  meaning  of  a  great  deal  of  your  literature, 
— this  idea  that  goes  out  to  the  membership,  that 
when  you  talk  strongly  in  favor  of  industrial  union- 
ism that  that  is  the  best  anti-military  propaganda, 
isn't  that  so? 

A. — No,  it  is  not  anti-military  propaganda. 

Q. — Well,  you  said  it  was,  didn't  you?  You  said, 
''Education  along  industrial  unionism  lines  is  the 
bes';  anti-military  propaganda." 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  205 

A. — Well,  it  is  the  best.  It  is  not  only  anti-mili- 
tary propaganda.    That  is  merely  an  incident. 

Q. — Well,  I  am  not  inquiring  about  other  things. 

A. — I  will  say  that  Industrial  Unionism  is  anti- 
military  propaganda. 

Q. — It  is  the  best  form,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

Q. — And  it  continued  to  be  from  April  1st  to 
September  1st,  1917,  didn't  it? 

A. — That  is  an  argument  you  are  making. 

Q.— Isn't  it  so? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  send  out  any  other  word  than 
that, — that  is  to  say,  did  you  ever  correct  the  impres- 
sion that  that  sentence  gives,  that  when  you  strike 
for  industrial  unionism  you  were  striking  against 
military  preparedness? 

A. — Yes,  but  we  were  striking  also  for  a  multi- 
tude of  other  things. 

Q. — Oh,  well,  let  us  grant  that. 

A. — Striking  for  the  8  hour  day. 

Q. — Was  this  one  of  the  purposes? 

A. — No.  That  was  not  the  purpose  then,  as  has 
been  indicated  by  everything  presented  here. 

Q. — Well,  isn't  it  a  fact,  Mr.  Haywood  that  you 
realized  full  well  that  if  you  got  openly  against  reg- 
istration as  an  organization  matter,  that  you  would 
go  athwart  of  government  law  and  would  be  prose- 
cuted at  once  ,of  course,  but  this  was  your  under- 
ground object  of  doing  it,  isn't  that  so? 

A. — Have  you  discovered  any  underground 
means  or  methods  or  anything  else  ? 

Q. — I  thought  so. 

A. — You  thought  so? 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — Well,  you  know  that  you  have  not.  You 
know  that  up  to  this  time,  up  to  the  meeting  of  the 
general  executive  board — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  A  little  louder,  please. 

THE  WITNESS:  I  was  talking  to  Mr.  Nebeker, 


206  TESTIMONY  OF 

but  what  I  say  to  Mr.  Nebeker  is  that  he  kno\ys  that 
there  was  no  underground  methods  at  the  time  of 
the  meeting  of  the  general  executive  board.  There 
was  not  a  thing  in  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World  but  what  was  open.  We  realized,  of  course, 
that  the  employing  class  was  opposed  to  us.  We 
know  their  influence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  am  talking  about  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  Our  military  prepared- 
ness. 

A. — Well,  we  are  against  preparedness. 

Q. — Well,  thank  you  for  the  admission. 

j^ Yes. 

Q.* — February  6,  1917 — 

A. — We  were  on  all  fours  with  President  Wilson, 
on  that  score. 

Q. — Well,  President  Wilson  is  not  here  to  de- 
fend himself. 

A. — We  have  got  his  book. 

Q. — February  6,  1917,  you  wrote  a  letter  to  J. 
A.  MacDonald,  who  was  editor  of  Industrial  Worker, 
wasn't  he? 

A. — February  6th? 

Q. — 1917,  after  the  severance  of  diplomatic  re- 
lations, in  which  you  said:  *'It  looks  now  as  though 
we  would  be  confronted  with  the  war  problem  our- 
selves in  the  near  future.  Our  main  purpose  must  be 
to  keep  the  working  class  fighting  the  real  enemy, 
and  to  extend  the  propaganda  of  industrial  union- 
ism."  Do  you  remember  of  that? 

A. — Of  course,  I  do  not.  I  can't  say  that  I  re- 
member the  letter,  but  I  know  that  that  would  be  my 
feeling. 

Q. — Now,  in  that  real  enemy,  that  means  some- 
body in  this  country,  I  suppose,  the  capitalist  class, 
or  something  of  that  kind? 

A. — We  were  going  to  fight  the — we  were  going 
to  have  enemies  is  this  country  and  we  are  when 
the  war  is  over,  by  fighting  the  same  battle. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  207 

Q. — I  just  wanted  to  find  out  what  you  meant  by 
the  real  enemy  there? 

A. — I  mean  the  real  enemy  there  was  the  lumber 
barons,  the  copper  barons,  the  railroad  magnate. 

Q. — Do  you  mean  to  say  it  would  not  be  the 
country  with  whom  they  might  be  embroiled  in  war? 

A. — What  was  that? 

Q. — That  w^ould  not  be  the  real  enemy?  Did 
you  mean  to  imply  by  the  use  of  that  term  ''the  real 
enemy"  that  it  would  not  be  the  enemy  that  we  would 
have  if  we  became  embroigled  in  war,  as  for  ex- 
ample, Germany? 

A. — Of  course,  that  is  only  a  matter  of  presump- 
tion. 

Q. — Well,  you  wrote  the  letter.  I  am  trying  to 
get  at  your  mind. 

A. — Well,  the  real  enemy  that  the  I.  W.  W.  rec- 
ognizes in  season  and  out  of  season  and  all  of  the 
time  is  the  man  who  is  exploiting  him,  the  employ- 
ing class. 

Q. — Did  you  mean  to  imply  that  even  if  we  got 
into  war  with  Germany,  that  that  would  not  be  the 
real  enemy? 

A. — No,  no.  I  never  meant  anything  of  the  kind. 
I  have  had  my  mind  on  the  real  enemy.  We  know 
who  he  is. 

Q. — On  February  4th,  you  wrote  Richard  Brazier, 
in  which  you  said:  "What  effect  will  war  on  this 
country  have?  Do  you  think  it  advisable  to  mix  a 
little  anti-m_ilitary  dope," — this  is  from  Brazier  to 
you — "a  little  anti-military  dope  with  our  organiza- 
tion talk  to  kill  the  virus  of  patriotism."  You  under- 
stood what  that  meant,  of  course,  "the  virus  of  pa- 
triotism"? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  know  that  Dick  considers  pa- 
triotism in  the  same  light  that  you  do. 

Q. — " — that  will  soon  be  sweeping  the  land." 
"I  wonder  if  we  are  back  to  this  same  problem  here 
that  our  Australian  fellow  workers  faced  and  defeat- 
ed.  If  we  are,  cannot  we  do  as  well  as  them?    What 


208  TESTIMONY  OF 

steps  shall  be  taken  to  get  the  same  results  that  they 
got?  Those  are  questions  that  have  got  to  be  an- 
swered, and  it  behooves  us  to  get  busy  before  the 
storm  breaks,  and  answer  them." 

And  you  answered: 

"We  have  not  ceased  to  carry  on  a  large  cam- 
paign against  militarism.  At  the  same  time  our  mem- 
bers should  also  realize  that  they  are  in  a  bitter  war, 
the  class  war.  If  they  understand  this,  they  will 
realize  their  position  when  called  upon  to  battle  for 
governments." 

Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  did  that  mean  anything  else 
than  this,  that  if  you  could  pound  into  the  heads  of 
the  members  of  the  I.  W.  W.  the  full  force  and  effect 
of  the  I.  W.  W.  fight  in  the  so-called  class  war,  that 
that  in  and  of  itself  would  produce  opposition  on 
their  part,  but  in — would  produce  the  opposition  on 
their  part  to  any  fight  that  the  United  States  might 
become  embroigled  in? 

A. — Now,  if  you  had  not  added  "the  United 
States",  I  would  have  said  yes,  that  was  the  position 
of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World. 

Q. — Well,  you  say  "governments"  here? 

A. — Ments,  yes. 

Q. — This  was  at  the  time  that  the  United  States 
was  not  in  war,  but  approaching  it. 

A. — Well,  we  were  to  be  in. 

Q.— Morally  certain  that  we  would  be  in  it? 

A. — We  were  to  be  in. 

Q. — But  you — but  don't  you  say,  "If  they  under- 
stand this  they  will  understand  their  position  when 
called  upon  to  battle  for  governments"? 

A. — Yes.  Now,  "governments".  That  means 
more  than  one,  doesn't  it? 

Q. — Yes,  that  is  far  enough. 

A. — We  had  to  organize  in  different  countries 
where  there  will  be  an  amalgamation  of  the  work- 
ers— 

Q. — But  you  were  in  this  country? 

A.— Yes, 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  209 

Q. — And  writing  to  a  member  in  this  country? 

A. — Yes,  not  only  in  this  country,  but  in  different 
government. 

Q. — You  did  not  take  any  part  in  any  other  coun- 
try on  one  side  or  other  of  the  war? 

A. — Why,  I  recited  here  Saturday  where  I  had 
voted  for  a  general  strike  as  a  means  of  preventing 
war. 

Q. — That  was  long  before  1914? 

A. — Long  before  1914,  yes. 

Q. — But  w^e  realized  that  war  was  inevitable. 
Even  if  not  this  particular  one,  some  other  one. 

Q. — I  want  to  get  at  this  fact  before  we  get  di- 
verted from  it.  By  the  way,  going  back  to  that  Bra- 
zier letter,  I  think  it  says  substantially  war  between 
the  United  States  and  Germany — doesn't  it?  Doesn't 
it  say  that  specifically?  It  says— the  letter  that  you 
answered  in  which  you  make  this  statement:  'If  they 
understand  this  they  will  realize  their  position  when 
called  upon  to  battle  for  governments."  Isn't  that 
clear  in  this  letter?  "What  effect  will  war  with  this 
country  and  Germany  have?"  Isn't  that  in  reply  to 
that  letter? 

A. — That  is  in  reply  to  that  letter,  but — 

Q. — You  were  answering  that  question — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  v/ish  you  would  let  the 
witness  testify  and  finish  his  answer. 

A. — If  we  were  organized  in  Germ.any  as  we 
hope  to  be,  and  were  organized  in  this  country,  now, 
if  we  were  as  we  hope  to  be,  then  the  workers,  keep- 
ing their  minds  on  industrial  unionism,  what  it  means 
is,  that  it  would  prevent  war  between  this  country 
and  Germany. 

Q.— Oh,  yes. 

A. — That  is  what  I  am  talking  about.  This  coun- 
try was  not  in  w^ar  then. 

Q. — But  he  was  talking  about  anti-military  prop- 
aganda in  this  country,  wasn't  he? 

A. — He  was  talking  about  anti-military  propa- 
ganda everywhere. 


210  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— -"What  effect  will  war  with  this  country  and 
Germany  have?  Do  you  think  it  advisable  to  mix  a 
little  anti-military  dope  with  our  organization  talks, 
to  kill  the  virus  of  patriotism?"  Now,  do  you  mean 
to  tell  me  that  he  was  asking  you  as  to  the  advis- 
ability of  making  an  anti-military  program  and  to 
carry  on  an  anti-military  program  in  any  other  coun- 
try than  this? 

A. — What  do  I  say  to  him?  You  have  got  it  right 
there.  I  said,  ''carry  on  the  useful  anti-military  prop- 
aganda," didn't  I? 

Q. — I  would  like  to  get  a  direct  answer. 

A. — Well,  that  is  my  direct  answer. 

Q. — I  understand  that  Brazier  was  talking  about 
— did  you  understand  that  Brazier  was  talking  about 
any  anti-military  program  in  any  other  country  than 
the  United  States  in  this  letter? 

A. — Now,  listen — 

Q. — Oh,  that  could  be  answered  yes  or  no. 

A. — Well,  it  cannot  be  answered  yes  or  no,  be- 
cause he  named  tv/o  countries.  I  want  to  explain  to 
you — 

Q. — Well,  I  will  pass  it  then, 

A.— All  right. 

Q. — On  August  4,  1916,  in  a  letter  to  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Kobylak  of  Rayland,  Ohio, — I  think 
this  was  written  bv  you — it  bears  your  initials, — -''W. 
D.  H.-O.  E.  B."— 

THE  COURT:  Two  o'clock,  gentlemen. 

(Whereupon  at  12 :45  o'clock  P.  M.  Court  took  a  recess 
until  2:00  o'clock  P.  M.  of  the  same  day,  August  12,  1918.) 

2   o'clock  P.   M.,  August  12,    1918. 

Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

(Roll  call  of  defendants  out  on  bail:  All  answered:  "Present.") 

CROSS  EXAMINATION   (Continued) 
By  Mr.  Nebeker. 

Q. — With  reference  to  the  receipts  of  the  organ- 
ization for  initiations,  after  the  first  of  April,  1917,  I 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  211 

did  not  have  the  notes  at  hand.  There  has  been 
introduced  in  evidence  here  a  summary  which  states 
that  from  initiations  there  were  received  in  April 
$5,439.25 ;  would  that  be  right,  so  far  as  you  know? 

A. — As  far  as  I  know. 

Q. — In  May,  ?7,894;  in  June,  $10,420;  in  July, 
$20,600,  and  in,  I  think  the  testimony  was,  the  sixteen 
days  in  August,  that  being  the  time  up  to  the  time 
that  these  computations  were  made,  $13,338. 

Does  that  correctly  state  the  amount  of  initiations 
that  were  received? 

A. — Well,  I  could  not  say  without 'the  report. 

Q. — That  the  dues  stamps  during  that  time  were 
$8,470  in  April;  $11,907  in  May;  $14,118  in  June, 
$23,741.50  in  July  and  then  in  the  same  period  of 
August,  I  do  not  know  just  what  it  was,  $17,182. 

A. — It  shows  a  steady  increase. 

Q. — Yes.  Making  a  grand  total  during  that  pe- 
riod of  time,  April  to  August  16th,  or  whenever  it 
was,  of  $271,141  received  from  those  various  sources. 
You  remember  those  figures  when  they  were  read  in 
evidence,  don't  you? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  the  figures,  but  if  they 
were  taken  from  my  reports,  they  are  correct.   ^ 

Q. — Now,  do  you  remember  a  letter  being  re- 
ceived by  you  from  Frank  Little  in  which  he  called 
your  attention  to  a  newspaper  clipping  to  the  effect 
that  Jane  Street,  one  of  the  members  of  your  organi- 
zation in  Denver,  had  been  doing  some  patriotic 
work,  do  you  recall  that? 

A. — I  recall  a  letter  from  Little  in  which  he  men- 
tioned something  about  Jane  Street,  I  don't  know — 

Q. — And  he  enclosed  in  that  letter,  did  he  not, 
his  letter  to  Miss  Oliver  Weaver,  mentioning  the  same 
thing? 

A. — To  whom? 

Q. — Miss  Oliver  Weaver,  Room  205,  Railroad 
Building,  Denver,  Colorado. 

A. — I  don't  know  the  Oliver  Weaver  woman 
at  all. 


212  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Well,  do  you  remember  receiving  the  copy  of 
Little's  letter  to  her,  commenting  on  the  information 
he  had  gotten  by  way  of  this  newspaper  clipping? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q. — Well,  now,  this  was  written  on  April  15th, 
1917,  and  is  addressed  to  you,  and  says — ^that  is  this 
letter  now  that  was  enclosed,  the  enclosure  to  you  of 
letter  to  Oliver  Weaver  says : 

''1  have  read  the  clippings  you  sent;  was  some- 
what amused  at  them.  Hope  they  are  the  usual  rot." 
By  the  way,  I  want  to  read  the  clipping.  This  is  taken 
from  one  of  the  papers,  the  capitalist  papers,  Denver 
I  suppose :  , 

"A  plan  to  substitute  women  traffic  cops,  de- 
tectives and  patrol  women  in  place  of  all  Denver 
police,  who  may  join  the  colors  either  through  vol- 
unteering or  conscription,  has  been  evolved  by  Mrs. 
Jane  Street,  head  of  the  Local  Domestic  Workers 
Union,  who  proposes  to  furnish  the  women  to  the 
city  in  the  event  of  war  vacancies  in  the  local  depart- 
ment. Not  only  will  Mrs.  Street  furnish  patrol  wo- 
men, but  also  will  be  prepared  to  supply  fire-women, 
post  offices,  conductors,  motor-women  and  female 
workers  in  all  trades,  she  announced  this  morning. 
She  declares  that  war  will  drain  the  west  of  men,  and 
that  women  will  be  forced  to  fill  up  the  depleted 
ranks  of  industry,"  Now  that  was  the  clipping.  Now 
in  a  letter  about  that  clipping.  Little  says  to  Miss 
Weaver;  I  am  referring  to  this  because  you  referred 
to  a  Little  letter  on  the  same  subject.  "I  have  read 
the  clipping  you  sent;  it  was  somewhat  amused  at 
them," — this  is  Little,  not  you.  *'I  hope  they  are  the 
usual  rot  printed  by  the  capitalist  press.  Would  hate 
to  think  they  were  true.  Would  hate  to  know  that 
any  member  of  the  I.  W.  W.  would  volunteer  to  aid 
the  capitalists  in  their  campaign  of  murder  that  they 
are  preparing  to  carry  on;  the  I.  W.  W.  is  opposed 
to  all  wars,  and  we  must  use  all  of  our  power  to 
prevent  the  workers  from  joining  the  army.  If  the 
regular  wants  to  go  to  the  firing  line,  we  should 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  213 

worry.  Why  should  we  care  whether  there  was  po- 
lice to  protect  the  city  of  Denver  or  any  other  town 
or  city.  No  member  of  the  organization,  whether 
man  or  woman,  should  act  either  as  police  or  soldier. 
If  the  industrial  pirates  wants  to  have  murder  com- 
mitted, let  them  do  their  own  dirty  work.  I  should 
hate  to  think  that  the  domestic  workers'  union  was 
aiding  them  in  their  work." 

Now  in  a  letter  written  by  you  on  April  13, 
1917,  you  seem,  I  say,  to  refer  to  this  same  matter. 
I  will  ask  you  if  it  does  refer  to  it — addressed  to  Joe 
Gordon  and  Elmer  H.  Groves,  415  East  5th  Street, 
Des  Moines,  Iowa. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  What  is  the  date  of  the 
other  letter? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  The  other  was  the  15th.  I  say, 
I  am  asking  if  it  does  not  relate  to  the  same  subject, 
Jane  Street's  activities. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Don't  the  letters  show  for 
themselves? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Yes,  sir,  I  think  it  does. 

Q. — Yours  of  the  11th" — it  appears  you  also  had 
received  some  information  concerning  the  same  mat- 
ter from  another  source :  "Yours  of  the  11th  received, 
note  the  clippings  enclosed.  It  is  interesting  to  know 
that  the  A.  F.  of  L.  men  followed  Gompers'  lead  and 
settled  the  strike  on  account  of  the  war.  Have  clip- 
pings from  Colorado  which  shows  that  Jane  Street  of 
the  Domestic  Workers  Union  has  been  badly  bitten 
by  the  bug  of  patriotism.  If  the  papers  tell  the  truth, 
she  is  following  the  lead  of  Sammy,  the  toad,  promis- 
ing her  members  for  all  kinds  of  military  service. 

"With  best  wishes  and  Yours  for  Industrial  Free- 
dom, 


General  Secretary-Treasurer." 
Was  that  your  letter? 
A. — I  presume  so. 


214  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — And  it  related  to  the  patriotic  activities  of 
Jane  Street,  a  member  of  your  organization  in  Den- 
ver, did  it? 

A. — ^Why,  I  should  say  it  did,  from  the  way  you 
read  it  then. 

Q. — It  appears  to  be  so.  This  seems  to  be  your 
letter,  letter  to  Richard  Brazier,  relating  to  the  same 
subject,  in  which  you  say: 

"A  long  time  ago  I  wrote  to  Jane  Street  to  keep 
the  objectionable  characters  away  from  their  head- 
quarters. Since  then  things  have  gone  from  bad  to 
worse.  The  latest  antics,  pledging  the  girls  in  the 
union  to  the  war,  makes  her  a  laughing  stock."  Did 
you  wrote  that  to  Mr.  Brazier? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now  I  may  be  mistaken  in  this,  but  I  think 
you  stated,  did  you  not,  Mr.  Haywood,  that  the  or- 
ganization did  not  do  anything  to  help  slackers? 

A. — No,  I  did  not. 

Q. — Didn't  you  say  that? 

A. — No,  I  have  not. 

Q. — ^The  organization  did  do  something  to  help 
slackers  then,  did  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir.  That  is  to  say,  the  organization  has 
furnished  counsel  where  men  were  accused  of  being 
slackers. 

Q.__Yes. 

A. — Yes.  We  did  not  know  they  were  slackers 
excepting  in  this  instance  where  the  men  gave  them- 
selves up. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  We  cannot  hear  you. 

A. — I  say  in  the  instance  of  where  these  men  gave 
themselves  up  over  at  Rockford — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Well,  you  got  more  angry 
at  that  than  anything  else,  didn't  you? 

A. — Well,  I  rather  think — 

Q. — The  Rockford  incident? 

A. — Not  more  than  anything  else.  There  are  a 
number  of  incidents  made  me  pretty  angry,  but  we 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  215 

did  employ  counsel  to  look  after  what  were  accused 
of  being  slackers. 

Q. — Who  did  you  employ? 

A. — Fred  Moore,  Fred  H.  Moore. 

Q. — Was  that  at  the  time  of  the  slackers'  strike 
up  in  Minnesota,  where  the  men  walked  out  because 
a  number  of  them  had  been  arrested  for  failing  to  re- 
gister ? 

A. — I  don't  remember  that  date  but  I  think  per- 
haps about  the  same  time. 

Q. — About  that  time  ? 

A. — It  all  occurred  about  that  time. 

Q. — And  Moore  was  employed  by  the  organiza- 
tion on  a  retainer  to  go  about  from  place  to  place? 

A. — To  look  after  the  interests  of  the  organiza- 
tion. 

Q. — And  to  defend  people  charged  with  being 
slackers? 

A.— Naturally. 

Q. — That  is,  defend  the  members  of  the  organi- 
zation charged  with  being  slackers.  Now  you  knew 
also  of  activities  along  that  same  line,  that  is,  ac- 
tivities of  branches  of  the  organiization,  in  behalf  of 
slackers ;  that  was  brought  to  your  attention,  wasn't 
it,  outside  of  what  the  general  organization  did? 

A. — No,  I  don't  recall.  There  may  have  been 
others ;  I  don't  recall  any  others  than  Crosby,  it  seems 
to  me. 

Q. — You  remember  of  receiving  this  resolution 
from  Crosby,  sent  to  you  by  Ino  Kutenen,  whatever 
his  name  is,  which  says — ^this  is  a  meeting  of  the 
I.  W.  W.,  the  branch  at  Crosby — ''which  said  ques- 
tion was  put  before  the  m.eeting,  what  will  we  do  the 
5th  of  June,  when  all  men  between  the  ages  of  21 
and  31  are  demanded  to  register  for  the  United  States 
War  Service?  After  discussion  it  was  decided  that 
we  will  notify  all  the  locals  of  490  and  also  the  head- 
quarters in  Chicago  that  we  have  made  the  decision 
that  we  will  all  refuse  to  register.  Motion  was  made 
and  carried  that  if  any  of  our  members  will  be  taken 


216  TESTIMONY  OF 

by  force,  we  will  go  on  strike  that  day  when  first  of 
us  is  taken  and  we  will  stop  industry." 

You  remember  of  receiving  that,  do  you? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  that  particularlys 

Q._You  don't? 

A.— No. 
Q. — Well,  do  you  remember  of  any  action  ever 
having  been  taken  by  you  or  any  other  official  of  the 
organization,  to  stop  that  proceeding  or  proposed 
proceeding  of  the  members  of  your  organization  up 
there  at  Crosby? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q. — As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  is  what  you  did 
write,  isn't  it,  in  answer  to  Kutenen,  June  first,  1917 : 

"The  motions  adopted  have  been  filed  for  record 
and  future  reference. 

General  Secretary-Treasurer. 

In  other  words,  you  wished  to  be  understood  as 
acquiesing  in  the  acts  of  those  people,  did  you  not? 

A. — No,  I  did  not. 

Q. — You  did  not  say  you  did  not,  did  you? 

A. — No,  I  didn't  say  I  did  either,  did  I? 

Q. — No.  Now  that  was  a  case  where  a  great 
many  strikers  were  arrested  at  the  time  this  letter 
refers  to  ? 

A. — There  never  were  a  number  arrested  there. 

Q. — A  great  number,  in  fact,  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
members,  and  some  other  Finns  who  worked  there? 

A. — I  have  heard  it  testified  to  here,  there  were 
a  number  of  them.  I  don't  recall  just  now  now  what 
was  stated. 

Q. — Now  you  also  had  very  prompt  and  timely 
information  about  a  proposed  similar  action  on  ac- 
count of  registration  in  Butte,  you  received  a  letter? 

A.— In  Butte? 

Q. — You  received  a  letter  from  Peter  Kirkenen 
from  Butte,  did  you  not? 

A. — I  did  not;  I  don't  think  I  did, 

Q._What? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  217 

A.— I  don't  think  I  did. 

MR.  NEBEKER:   Where  is  the  file? 

(File  handed  to  counsel.) 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — I  hand  you  a  letter  dated 
Butte,  Montana,  June  5,  1917,  addressed  to  William 
D.  Haywood,  upon  which  there  is  no  signature,  but 
upon  which  appears  the  word  "file."  Is  that  word 
"file"  written — was  it  written  by  and  in  your  hand- 
writing ? 

A. — I  don't  think  so;  just  let  me  read  this  letter, 
will  you? 

Q. — I  mean  this  word  "file." 

A. — No.    No  reply  to  this? 

Q.- — No  reply,  no.    You  remember  the  testimony? 

A. — Yes,  I  do. 

Q. — That  you  had  the  practice,  where  you  did 
not  answer  the  letter,  of  just  writing  the  word  "file." 

A. — I  don't  think  I  wrote  that. 

Q. — You  think  that  is  not  your  handwriting  on 
that  letter? 

A. — I  don't  think  it  is. 

Q. — And  you  have  no  recollection  of  receiving 
that  letter  from  Kirkenen? 

A. — None  at  all. 

Q. — And  ccould  you  have  rceoived  such  a  letter 
as  that  and  have  forgotten  it? 

A. — No,  it  is  not  likely. 

Q. — Now  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  is  a  letter  dated 
June  5th,  isnt  it? 

A.— Yes. 

And  addressed  to  you,  in  which  is  stated:  "We 
I.  W.  W.  members  of  Butte,  Montana,  have  been  do- 
ing some  anti-war  agitation,  and  the  5th  day  of 
June,  1917,  we  tried  to  hold  a  meeting  and  form  an 
anti-war  parade." 

Now  you  remember  that  there  was  an  anti-war 
parade  on  that  day? 

A. — I  heard  the  testimony  here. 

Q. — And  several  of-  our  members  and  sympha- 
thisers  were  imprisoned  by  the  authorities,  and  con- 


218  TESTIMONY  OF 

sequently.  we  have  decided  to  declare  Butte  under 
strike  conditions,  and  help  in  any  form  is  urgently 
needed,  so  send  us  pamphlets  and  speakers,  if  pos- 
sible.   Now  is  the  time  to  act,  the  sooner  the  better/' 

Now  very  shortly  after  that  you  did  send  them 
speakers,  didn't  you? 

A. — Well,  I  got  a  telegram  asking  for  speakers. 

Q. — And  you  sent  them? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  gave  them  directions — 
A. — Sure. 

Q. — You  sent  Brazier  down  there.  Brazier  and 
Doran  and  Foss,  didn't  you? 

A.— Yes. 

Q._What? 

A.— Who?    Brazier? 

Q. — Brazier  and  Doran  and  Foss? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Sent  them  down  on  the  12th? 
-    A.— Of  July. 

Q._12th  of  July? 

A. Yes. 

MR.  PORTER:     The  12th  of  July. 

A.— The  12th  of  June,  I  should  say. 

MR.   NEBEKER:      Q, — You   know   Peter   Kirk- 
enen's  signature,  don't  you? 

A. — I  don't  know  whether  I  have  received  any 
letters  from  Peter  Kirkenen  or  not. 

Q. — ^Do  you  mean  to  say  you  don't  know  his  sig- 
nature? 

A. — Why,  I  can't  tell  whether  I  ever  saw  it. 

Q. — Well,  I  will  show  you  a  letter  to  Harry  Lloyd, 
signed  Peter  Kirtenen  and  ask  you  to  state  now — 

A. — It  looks  like  the  signature  had  been  cut  off 
of  this. 

Q. — Yes,  it  seems  so ;  do  you  know  who  cut  it  off? 

A.— No,  I  don't.     Do  you? 

Q— I  don't. 

A. — Yes,  I  have  seen  something  that  looked  like 
that. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  219 

Q. — That  is  his  signature,  isn't  it? 

A. — I  wouldn't  say. 

Q. — Well,  that  is  identical,  that  letter  signed  by 
him,  or  if  that  is  his  signature,  signed  by  him  and 
dated  the  same  and  is  the  same  identical  letter  as 
the  other,  isn't  it? 

A. — There  is  something  peculiar  in  a  way  about 
this  letter.  It  is  not  addressed  as  I.  W.  W.  letters  are. 
If  you  notice  the  "W.  D.  Haywood,"  is  in  a  different 
type  than  the  body  of  the  letter.  It  don't  seem  to  be 
the  same  kind  of  type  as  this  letter,  for  instance. 
(Indicating.) 

Q. — Isn't  one  a  carbon  of  the  other,  with  the 
names  written  in  afterwards  ? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Oh,  that  is  not  cross-exam- 
ination, if  the  Court  please. 

A. — I  couldn't  tell  you. 

MR.  NE.BEKER:  Q. — Isn't  this  letter,  in  other 
words,  to  Harry  Lloyd,  isn't  it  evidently  written  on 
the  same  typewriter,  and  is  a  copy — a  carbon  copy  of 
it,  as  the  one  addressed  to  you?  Well,  I  will  ask  you 
first  don't  that  appear  to  be  so? 

A. — Yes,  it  does  appear  to  be  so. 

Q. — Then  in  the  letter  that  you  say  has  been 
written,  the  words  ''William  D.  Haywood,"  with  some 
other  typewriter,  you  think? 

A.— Well  it  looks  like  it. 

Q. — It  does.  Now,  it  is  the  same  with  the  name 
Harry  Lloyd,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  it  is. 

Q. — Then,  in  other  words,  it  would  appear  that 
carbons  of  this  letter  were  made  out  at  the  same 
time  that  the  original  was  written,  and  then  upon 
another  typewriter  your  name  was  written  into  one 
and  it  was  sent  to  you,  and  on  another  one  Harry 
Lloyd's  name  was  written  in  and  it  was  sent  to  him. 
That  is  what  it  would  appear  to  be  on  its  face, 
wouldn't  it? 

A. — It  looks  something  like  that,  yes. 


220  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — So  there  is  no  mystery  about  it  after  all,  is 
there? 

A. — Well,  there  is  considerable  mystery;  I  don't 
remember  ever  having  received  that  letter. 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  understand  you  will  say  on  your 
word  of  honor  that  that  word  *'file"  was  not  written 
by  you,  would  you? 

A. — Yes,  I  would  say  that  it  does  not  look  like 
my  word  "file." 

Q. — Well,  that  is  not  quite  responsive.  Would 
you  say  tthat  it  was  not  written  by  you?  A  man  can 
usually  tell. 

A. — Yes,  but  it  don't  look  like  my  writing;  I 
would  say  that  it  was  not. 

Q. — Does  it  look  enough  like  your  writing  to 
make  you  in  doubt  wheher  it  was? 

A. — No,  I  would  say  it  does  not  look  like  mine.  I 
don't  remember  the  letter  and  it  doesn't  look  like  my 
word  "file." 

MR.  VANDERVEER:    A  little  louder. 

A. — I  say  that  it  does  not  look  like  the  word 
"file,"  written  by  me,  and  I  don't  remember  ever  hav- 
ing received  that  letter,  and  there  is  no  response  to  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Oh,  no.  There  wasn't  any, 
to  letters  where  you  wrote  the  word  "file,"  was 
there  ? 

A. — No,  that  is  true. 

Q. — What  I  was  trying  to  find  out  was  whether 
you  had  received  this  information  written  from  Butte 
on  the  5th  of  June,  and  you  remember  that  the  mine 
disaster  occurred  on  the  8th,  three  days  afterwards, 
you  remember  that,  do  you? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Whether  you  had  received  this  information 
from  Peter  Kirkenen,  an  I.  W.  W.  leader,  in  that  city, 
to  the  effect  that  an  anti-war,  anti-conscription  or 
registration  parade  had  been  held  or  was  to  be  held, 
that  is  what  I  was  trying  to  get  at.  Now  you  say  you 
don't  know  whether  you  ever  received  it  or  not? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  221 

Ans.—  No,  I  don't  remember  having  received  that 
letter. 

Q. — It  would  not  have  impressed  you  sufficiently 
for  it  to  have  remained  in  your  memory? 

A. — I  think  probably  it  woiuld. 

Q. — If  you  had  received  it? 

A. — I  think  it  would. 

Q. — Was  this  word  "file"  on  this  letter  I  hand 
you,  written  by  you  ? 

A. — I  think  it  was,  perhaps. 

Q. — I  refer  to  letter  dated  Jerome,  Arizona, 
6-5-17? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  are  pretty  sure  that  the  word  "file''  was 
written  by  you?  . 

A. — That  looks  more  like  my  writing. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  would  like  you  gentlemen  to 
look  at  these.     (Handing  documents  to  jury.) 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  I  wish  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  letter  that  was  written  July  3rd,  1917,  to  you, 
by  Dan  Buckley,  addressed  to  you  at  1001  West 
Madison  Street,  Chicago,  in  which  he  said :  "I  have 
received  several  inquiries  from  fellow-workers  who 
have  been  inmprisoned  for  having  failed  to  register, 
asking  my  advice  as  to  what  is  best  to  be  done  in 
their  cases.  I  should  like  to  know  what  stand,  if  any, 
the  organization  is  going  to  take  on  this  question?" 

Now,  particularly  to  your  answer  to  this  part 
of  it:  "No  official  stand  has  been  taken  by  the  or- 
ganization on  the  question  of  registration,  believing 
that  the  individual  member  was  the  best — " 

A. — What  is  the  date  of  that? 

Q. — This  is  July  7,  1917,  and  in  answer  to  the 
Buckley  letter:  "Believing  that  the  individual  mem- 
ber was  the  best  judge  of  how  to  act  on  this  question. 
Still  no  thing  has  been  left  undone  to  help  out."  We 
assume  you   used  that  language   advisedly,   didn't 


you 


A. — Yes,  if  I  had  used  it. 

Q. — Do  you  doubt  writing  this  letter? 


222  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — I  rather  think  I  did  write  it.     Let's  see. 

Q.— How  is  that? 

A. — Now,  when  I  say  that  I  did  not  write  this 
letter,  I  do  not  want  to  shift  the  responsibility.  A 
letter  coming  to  the  office,  that  was  not  dictated  to 
the  stenographer,  I  generally  step  over  to  Dick 
Brazier  and  just  in  a  casual  way  told  him  what  I 
thought  ought  to  be  in  reply,  and  this  is  one  of  Bra- 
zier's letters. 

MR.  VANDEVEER :    How  does  that  appear? 

A. — Well,  it  is  the  way  it  is  signed  at  the  bottom. 
He  signed  it,  ''Yours  for  the  O.  B.  U."  I  never  signed 
a  letter  that  way. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  I  suppose  you  usually 
looked  over  Dick's  letters  before  he  sent  them  out? 

A. — Well,  sometimes. 

Q. — On  important  matters  lik  ethis? 

A. — Sometimes  I  simply  put  my  signature  on  or 
the  rubber  stamp,  as  the  case  may  be.  However,  I 
am  responsible  for  that  letter,  whatever  it  is. 

Q. — Well,  whoever  wrote  it,  it  was  written  from 
headquarters  in  Chicago,  and  either  by  you  or  a 
member  of  the  General  Executive  Board? 

A. — I  say  I  am  responsible  for  it,  whatever  it  is. 

Q. — And  it  is  right  in  connection  with,  is  it  not,  in 
connection  with  the  statement  ''still,"  nothing  has 
been  left  undone  to  help  out  the  boys  arrested  for 
evading  registration." 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  that  letter  would  not  mean  boys  who 
were  not  subject  to  registration ;  it  would  mean  those 
who  were  subject  to  registration,  between  21  and  31 
years  of  age,  who  were  evading.  Now,  that  is  what 
it  meant,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  what  it  said. 

Q. — In  that  connection  you  stated,  or  this  letter 
states:  "Fred  H.  Moore  has  been  engaged  as  general 
counsel  for  the  I.  W.  W.,  and  the  greater  part  of  his 
time  will  be  occupied  in  cases  growing  out  of  the 
evasion  of  registration  by  the  members.    The  G.  E.  B. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  223 

in  session  has  devoted  considerable  time  to  discussing 
the  whole  proposition,  and  I  am  preparing  a  state- 
ment on  same  for  the  membership." 

Do  you  remember  of  getting  information  from 
Augusta,  Kansas,  May  21,  1917,  with  respect  to  an 
anti-conscription  resolution  that  was  passed  there? 

A. — Do  I  remember? 

Q._Yes. 
A. — Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q. — In  that,  the  information  that  was  conveyed  to 
to  you  in  a  letter  dated  May  21,  1917,  in  respect  to 
that,  was  as  follows:  ''Members  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
resist  conscription  by  refusing  to  join  band  of  poten- 
tial murderers  or  by  any  other  other  effective  method 
deemed  advisable ;  copies  of  this  motion  be  sent  to 
William  D.  Haywood,  Secretary-treasurer  I.  W.  W., 
and  Forest  Edwards,  Secretary-treasurer  A.  W.  O., 
with  he  request  that  these  two  officials  transmit 
same  with  despach  to  all  unions  of  the  I.  W.  W. — 
I.  W.  W.'s  delegates  in  the  field."  You  remember 
that,  do  you? 

A. — Yes.    I  would  like  to  look  at  that  resolution. 

Q. — That  was,  of  course,  information  that  head- 
quarters had  at  the  time  that  the  letter  that  you  call 
the  Brazier  letter  was  written? 

A.— What  is  that? 

Q. — I  say,  this  is  information  that  you  had  at 
headquarters  at  the  time  what  you  have  called  the 
Brazier  letter,  but  over  your  title,  was  written? 

A. — Written  to  whom? 

Q. — Written  to  Buckley. 

A. — What  has  that  got  to  do  with  this? 

Q. — Well,  I  say.  You  had  information  concerning 
this,  as  well  as  the  anti-conscription  activity  of 
Crosby,  and  also  the  anti-registration  activity  in 
Butte,  at  the  time  the  Brazier  letter  was  written? 

A. — Yes,  they  were  all  in  the  office  at  that  time. 

Q. — Here  is  a  letter,  since  that  question  has 
arisen  —  did  you  write  that  or  did  Dick  Brazier 
write  it? 


224  TESTIMONY  OF 

(Handing  document  to  witness.) 

A. — ^Brazier  wrote  this. 
Q. — Brazier  wrote  that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — One  of  the  first  places  that  Moore  went  to 
after  he  was  employed  was  down  to  Rockf ord,  wasn't 
it? 

A. — Yes,  and  the  next  was  down  to  Bisbee. 

Q. — He  didn't  go  down  there  to  defend  slackers? 

A. — No,  he  went  down  there  to  defend  the  men 
who  had  been  deported  and  see  what  he  could  do  for 
their  wives  and  children. 

Q. — Now,  at  Rockford,  I  wonder  if  this  one — 
here  is  another  one  over  your  title,  is  that  one  you 
wrote  or  did  somebody  else  in  headquarters  write  it? 

A. — You  read  this  one,  didn't  you? 

Q. — No,  not  yet. 

A. — Well,  it  also  was  written  by  Brazier;  I  want 
you  to  understand  I  aassume  the  responsibility. 

Q. — Well,  I  want  the  fact.  Did  you  have  any- 
thing personally  to  do  with  getting  out  that  July 
bulletin?  on  the  subject  of  the  Rockford  anti-regis- 
tration activity? 

A. — I  wrote  the  bulletin. 

Q. — You  wrote  the  bulletin? 

A. — I  wrote  it. 

Q. — By  the  way,  counsel  at  some  time  during 
this  trial  has  referred  to  some  harmony,  apparantly, 
of  action  and  plan  and  policy  between  the  State 
Council  of  Defense  of  Washington,  and  one  Mr. 
Marsh  and  the  I.  W.  W. 

Do  you  recall  what  I  allude  to? 

A. — Yes,  I  heard  what  was  said  here. 

Q. — Now,  in  this  bulletin  oy  yours  of  July,  1917, 
the  one  which  you  say  you  wrote,  you  stated  also: 
''The  State  Council  of  National  Defense  upon  which 
are  bankers,  lawyers,  bosses  and  A.  F.  of  L.  labor 
leaders,  haave  recommended  that  Federal  troops  be 
sent  to  supress  the  I.  W.  W.  and  break  the  strike." 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  225 

That  was  the  State  Council  of  Defense  in  the  State 
of  Washington,  wasn't  it,  that  you  referred  to? 

A. — Let  me  see  that. 

Q. — That  paragraph,  the  second  from  the  bot 
tom?      (Handing  to  witness.) 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  that  is  a  statement  of  the  truth  of  the 
fact,  is  it? 

A. — I  believed  it  was. 

Q. — That  is,  that  ''the  State  Council  of  Defense 
on  w^hich  were  bankers,  lawyers,  bosses  and  A.  F.  of 
L.  labor  leaders,  have  recommended  that  Federal 
troops  be  sent  to  suppress  the  I.  W.  W.  and  break 
the  strike.  The  sponsor  of  this  humane  plan  is  one 
Marsh."  That  is  the  Marsh  who  has  been  mentioned 
here  ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q.— ''President  of  the  Washington  State  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  advocating  that  Federal  troops  be  sent 
to  break  the  strike.  This  is  the  type  of  labor  leaders 
that  the  A.  F.  of  L.  develops,  but  in  spite  of  all  their 
help,  their  hired  hessians,  their  militiamen  and  all 
the  authorities  of  so-called  law  and  order  which  are 
arrayed  against  the,  so-called  lumber  workers,  the 
strike  is  spreading." 

That  is  a  statement  of  fact,  was  it? 

A. — I  believed  so,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — In  other  words,  the  recommendation  to 
handle  that  situation  up  there,  came  from  the  Wash- 
ington State  Council  of  Defense  ? 

A. — It  seems  so,  or  at  least  that  was  my  opinion 
of  it  at  the  time. 

Q. — Well,  you  said  so,  anyhow,  didn't  you? 

A. — Yes,  we  had  evidently  got  some  information 
to  that  effect. 

Q. — -Now,  it  is  in  this  bulletin  (indicating)  in 
which  you  used  this  supplementary  language  with 
reference  to  how  the  courts  disposed  of  the  Rockford 
cases,, isn't  it? 


226  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — I  don't  know  whether  it  is  in  that  particular 
one  or  not — yes,  that's  the  one. 

Q. — Did  you  issue  more  than  one  monthly  bul- 
letin? 

A.- — No,  that  was  the  monthly  bulletin. 

Q. — That  is  the  July  bulletin,  1917.  By  the  way, 
now  just  one  further  matter  on  the  general  propa- 
ganda question  and  alluding  again  to  ''The  Deadly 
Parallel,"  I  think  you  said  to  counsel  that  it  was 
suppressed? 

A. — -No,  I  don't  think  that  counsel  has  said  any- 
thing to  me  about  the  ''Deadly  Parallel." 

Q. — Oh,  yes,  he  did.  Just  try  to  recall  now  and 
see  if  you  did  not  say  to  him  that  it  was  suppressed 
in  answer  to  a  leading  question  from  him? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  remember. 

Q. — Was  it  suppressed  then? 

A.— Yes. 

Q._When? 

A. — About  the  latter  part  of  March,  1917. 

Q.— How? 

A. — Well,  no  more  of  them  were  sent  out. 

A  JUROR:  We  cannot  hear  you. 

A. — No  more  of  them  was  sent  out. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — What  was  done  with 
them? 

A. — Left  in  the  office. 
Q. — Where  are  they  now? 

A. — They  are  in  the  hands  of  the  Federal  au- 
thorities, I  think. 

Q. — How  many  of  them. 

A. — All  of  the  original  packages,  as  they  were 
delivered  from  the  printer. 

Q. — Do  you  think  so? 

A. — I  believe  so. 

Q. — Have  you  ever  seen  them? 

A. — No,  but  I  have  inquired  into  it. 

Q. — In  other  words,  you  had  them  on  hand  in  the 
headquarters  in  the  original  packages  unopened  on 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  227 

September  5,  1917,  is  that  what  you  wish  us  to  under- 
stand? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did  you  send  out  any  of  them? 

A. — Oh,  I  think  so,  a  few. 

Q.— After  March? 

A. — Well,  now,  there  has  been  a  letter  here 
where  a  few  were  sent  to  Francis  Miller. 

Q._Yes. 

A. — I  did  not  know  that. 

Q. — Well,  that  was  your  letter,  wasn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  my  letter,  and  I  sent  them,  but  I  did  not 
think  that  there  had  any  gone  after  the  declara- 
tion of  war. 

Q. — Well,  this  letter  that  had  been  read  was 
read  a  long  time  ago  here  in  this  case,  wasn't  it? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  now  say  it  was  suppressed  in  March, 
nothwithstanding  the  information  contained  in  that 
letter? 

A. — Well,  now,  with  the  exception  of  those  few — 

Q. — Oh,  I  see.  Well,  now,  didn't  you  also  receive 
a  letter  from  McAvoy,  as  late  as  June  3rd,  1917,  in 
which  he  spoke  of  making  use  of  ''The  Deadly 
Parallel"? 

A. — I  may  possibly  done  so.  What  was  the  re- 
ply to  it? 

Q. — I  do  not  have  the  same  here.  This  is  Mc- 
Avoy to  Haywood,  June  3rd,  1917:  "I  spoke  about 
one  hour  and  a  half — "  this  is  what  McAvoy  is  say- 
ing. ''The  crowd  listened  very  attentively.  The 
Deadly  Parallel  was  read,"  well  you  would  say  then 
that  in  two  instances,  at  any  rate,  they  were  not 
suppressed? 

A. — No.  I  want  to  know  the  reply  to  that.  -  I 
don't  believe  I  sent  any. 

Q. — I  will  try  to  have  it  looked  up  for  you.  Maybe 
it  is  one  of  the  letters  with  just  the  word  "file"  on  it. 

A. — It  may  be,  and  that  may  be  the  Deadly  Par- 
allel that  he  got  in  March. 


228  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — Well  now,  wasn't  that  circulated  in  another 
form,  right  through  the  full  period  of  the  war? 

A. — It  was  published  in  ''Solidarity'-  and  also  ap- 
pears in  the  book  of  the  ''General  Strike." 

Q. — And  was  the  "General  Strike"  pamphlet  cir- 
culated during  the  entire  period  of  the  war? 

A. — That  I  cannot  tell  you;  I  don't  know  how 
many  of  them  was  distributed.  No  effort  was  made — 

Q. — You  remember  the  witness  testifying  here 
that  in  March  there  v/ere  20,000  of  them  printed? 

A. — Yes.  How  many  were  distributed  I  could  not 
tell  you. 

Q. — And  there  is  testimony  here — 

ME.  VANDERVEER :  February,  Mr.-  Nebeker, 
is  the  testimony. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Well,  thank  you. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Do  not  always  put  it 
March. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Testimony  to  the  effect  that 
4,500  and  some  odd  of  them  were  found  in  the  raids 
on  September  5th? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  remember  that  don't  you? 

A.— No,  I  don't. 

Q. — Well,  have  you  any  reason  to  doubt  there 
were  that  many  of  that  pamphlet  out  in  circulation? 

A. — ^I  could  not  tell  you  how  many  there  were, 
without  going  over  the  record, 

Q. — This  is  the  pamphlet,  isn't  it,  that  you  call 
"The  General  Strike?"     (Handing  to  witness.) 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  say  that  the  "Deadly  Paralell"  was 
suppressed,  do  you? 

A. — Well,  that  circular  was  suppressed,  yes. 

Q. — Isn't  this  printed  on  pages  46  and  47,  that 
"Deadly  Parallel,"  the  same  identical,  word  for 
word,  as  upon  that  circular  that  is  referred  to? 

A. — Isn't  that  just  what  I  told  you,  that  it  was 
suppressed? 

Q. — I  am  asking  you  now. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  229 

A. — Do  you  want  me  to  repeat  it? 

Q._Yes. 

A.— Yes. 

Q, — Yes  it  is.  And  it  was  circulated  during  the 
entire  period  of  the  war,  from  April  6th,  until  Sep- 
tember 28th,  1917? 

A. — That  I  canot  tell  you. 

Q. — Well,  you  won't  deny  that  it  was,  will  you? 

A. — No.  I  could  give  you  just  exactly  the  num- 
ber if  I  had  the  books. 

Q. — Tell  me  why  you  suppressed  the  ''Deadly 
Parallel"  at  all  if  you  were  sending  it  out  in  this 
form? 

A. — Do  you  want  to  know  why  it  went  out  in  that 
form? 

Q. — Yes,  that  is  what  I  am  asking  you. 

A. — Now,  I  had  entirely  forgotten  that  it  was  in 
that  pamphlet,  or  the  pamphlet  would  not  have  went 
out. 

Q. — I  see. 

A. — I  think,  Mr.  Nebeker,  you  have  a  letter  there 
somewhere  in  regard  to  the  "Deadly  Parallel,"  in 
which  I  mentioned  the  fact  that  this  should  not  be 
used,  that  it  should  not  give  support  or  comfort — 

Q. — There  is  something  of  that  character. 

A. — Well,  that  meant  just  what  it  said. 

Q. — I  don't  know  whether  it  is  from  you  or  from 
whom. 

A. — Well,  that  was  from  me. 

Q. — To  the  effect  that  it  was  hurting  some  of  your 
propaganda  that  you  were  carrying  on  up  in  Seattle 
or  the  Northwest,  wasn't  it? 

A. — Well,  I  know  that  there  is  some  letter  some- 
where— 

Q. — In  other  words  the  situation  was  that  in  the 
Everett  defense  you  were  getting  a  little  help  from 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  were  you  not? 

A. — Oh,  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Q. — Let's  get  at  the  fact.    You  were  getting  some 


230  TESTIMONY  OF 

help  from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  weren't 
you? 

A. — A  very  considerable. 
Q. — A  very  considerable? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  v^as  in  the  Everett  Defense,  and  the  cir- 
culation of  this  Deadly  Parallel  at  that  time  and  up 
in  that  section  of  the  country,  wsiS,  injuring  the  ef- 
fort— 

A. — Are  you  asking  me  a  question  or  arguing  to 
the  jury? 

Q. — Well,  I  am  asking  you  a  question. 

A. — Well,  that  is  what  I  want. 

Q. — I  will  start  over  again :  The  fact  of  the  mat- 
ter is  that  the  circulation  of  the  ''Deadly  ParalleF' 
in  which  you  were  making  an  attack  upon  the  A.  F.  of 
L.  was  injuring  the  efforts  of  these  or  thwarting  the 
efforts  of  those  members  of  your  organization  who 
were  getting  money  from  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  isn't  that 
the  fate? 

A. — No,  it  is  not  the  fact,  because  this  particular 
letter  that  I  refer  to,  cites  the  fact  that  that  ''Deadly 
Parallel"  is  directed  against  Gompers  and  should 
not  be  used. 

Q. — Yes.  Well,  now  I  think  you  have  misunder- 
stood me. 

A. — No,  I  have  not.  Your  idea  is  that  I  sup- 
pressed it  because  it  was  hurting  the  A.  F.  of  L. 

Q. — Oh,  no,  hurting  the  I.  W.  W.  in  getting 
money  for  the  Everett  Defense. 

A. — Well,  that  is  not  true. 

Q. — Because  it  did  attack  Gompers  and  the  A.  F. 
of  L. 

A. — Oh,  if  it  was  only  Gompers  that  was  being  at- 
tacked, it  would  never  have  been  suppressed.  The 
A.  F.  of  L.  and  Gompers  were  the  fellows  it  was 
after,  to  show  them  up,  but  because  it  was  giving 
support  and  comfort  to  the  enemy,  it  was  suppressed. 

Q. — What  enemy? 

A. — Germany;  that  is  what  the  letter  says. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  231 

Q. — Oh,  it  is  because  it  helped  Germany  that  it 
was  suppressed,  is  that  the  idea? 

A. — Why,  certainly. 

Q. — Well,  now  let's  see.  The  letter  you  refer 
to  I  suppose  is  the  letter  of  April  12th,  1917,  v/ritten 
by  you  to  Francis  Miller,  in  which  you  say:  ''By 
even  mail  I  am  sending  you  a  package  of  the  'Par- 
allel.' Would  like  to  have  the  distribution  of  the 
'Parallel'  as  wide  as  possible.  Have  been  waiting  for 
that  day  of  reaction  which  is  certain  to  come." 

A. Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Reaction  against  what? 

A. — Reaction  against  the  war. 

Q. — Oh,  and  on  April  12th,  the  sixth  day  after 
war  was  actually  declared,  you  were  expecting  a 
sentiment  of  reaction  to  develop  in  the  country  and 
then  you  would  use  the  "Deadly  Parallel,"  is  that 
the  idea? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — You  were  just  laying  low  until  that  came, 
is  that  the  idea? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  that  is  all.    Read  that  letter. 

Q. — I  have  read  one  paragraph.  Anothe-r  para- 
graph is:  "We  must  be  very  careful  not  to  do  any- 
thing that  can  be  interpreted  as  giving  comfort  or 
support  to  the  enemy."  You  meant  by  that  Ger- 
many? 

A. — Of  course.    Who  could  you  think  I  meant? 

Q. — "But  we  can  and  must  take  advantage  of 
every  opportunity  to  rap  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  and  there  is 
no  better  way  of  doing  this  than  by  pointing  out  their 
mistakes  and  maintaining  our  principles." 

Now,  assuming  that  you  di^  mean  Germany, 
what  you  were  in  effect  saying  there  is  that  you 
should  not  commit  open  treason? 

A. — Why,  certainly  not. 

Q. — That  is  about  what  you  meant,  wasn't  it? 

A. — Exactly.  You  don't  expect  us  to  commit 
treason. 

Q.— Well— 


232  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Open  or  otherwise. 

Q. — Well,  that  is  what  you  had  reference  to, 
saying,  "Giving  comfort,  anything  that  could  be  in- 
terpreted as  giving  comfort  or  support  to  the  enemy/' 
You  are  advising  against  the  use  of  something  that 
would  be  construed  to  be  treason? 

A. — I  was  advising  against  the  use  of  something 
or  anything  that  could  be  interpreted  as  giving  sup- 
port to  the  enemy. 

Q. — And  yet  it  went  right  along  in  'The  General 
Strike." 

A. — I  told  you  why. 

Q. — Now,  let's  see,  was  that  because  of  your  soli- 
citude for  this  country  in  this  war  with  Germany? 

A. — Yes,  on  account  of  my  solicitude,  not  so  much 
for  this  country  as  against  Germany. 

Q. — You  felt  very  bitter  against  Germany? 

A. — Why  certainly  I  do. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  send  out  any  communication  to 
members  of  the  organization  to  help  anybody  fight 
Germany? 

A. — Why,  every  man  is  rendering  his  bit  now. 

Q.— Oh,  no. 

A. — Oh,  yes  they  are. 

Q. — I  am  asking  you,  did  you  ever  send  out  any- 
thing? 

A. — No,  I  didn't  need  to. 

Q. — That  would  encourage  anybody  to  go  and 
fight? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Do  you  ever  know  of  anybody  doing  any- 
thing for  this  country,  that  is,  among  the  leaders  of 
your  organization,  any  more  than  Ralph  Chaplin  said 
he  did  when  he  wrote  a  sonnet  about  the  rape  of 
Belgium? 

A. — Well,  I  could  pick  out  a  lot  of  fellows  that 
were  working,  rendering  good  service  to  what  you 
claim  was  essential  work  for  the  Government  until 
you  arrested  them  and  throwed  them  in  jail  and  held 
them  idle  here  for  ten  months. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  233 

Q. — I  am  asking  you  now  about  the  propaganda, 
the  writings,  anything  that  went  through  the  news- 
papers, to  encourage  a  single  I.  W.  W.  to  do  any- 
thing to  help  the  Government  in  this  crisis  ? 

A. — No,  we  didn't  say  anything  about  joining  the 
army,  but  later  you  will  hear  that  we  did  say  some- 
thing— 

Q. — You  did  personally  say  a  good  many  things 
the  other  way,  didn't  you? 

A.— No,  not  during  the  war ;  I  have  said  a  good 
many  strong  things  against  soldiers. 

Q. — When  did  you  draft  that  little  slip  there,  in 
your  own  handwriting?  .  (Handing  to  witness.) 

A. — Who  drafted  this  little  slip  up  on  top? 

Q.— I  don't  know.  I  can  probably  tell  you  if  I 
look  at  it. 

A. — That  don't  belong  here,  does  it? 

THE  COURT :    Suspend  here  for  a  moment. 

A. — Yes,  those  are  not  the  only  things  I  said. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Just  a  moment,  please,  the 
court  has  stepped  out. 

(Short  intermission.) 

THE  COURT :    Proceed,  gentlemen. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Now  you  say  that  was 
written  by  you? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Did  you  answer  when  you 
wrote  it?     That  was  the  question. 

A. — Well,  I  don't  remember  just  when  I  wrote 
it,  but  it  was  a  long  time  before  the  war. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Along  about  the  fall  of  1916, 
wasn't  it? 

A. — Sometime  I  should  say  the  early  part  of  1916. 
I  see  on  the  bottom  of  it  it  has  that  "Why  be  a 
Soldier." 

Q._Yes. 

A.- — That  was  printed  in  Cleveland. 

Q. — Was  this  a  suggestion  for  stickerettes  ? 

A. — That  particular  one  was. 

Q.— A  little  louder. 

A. — That  particular  one  was  a  suggestion. 


234  TESTIMONY  OF 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Well,  I  mean,  isn't  this  a 
draft  for  paragraphs  for  stickerettes,  the  entire 
thing? 

A. — No,  those  are  things  I  used  in  speeches. 

Q. — It  is  your  handwriting: 

''Join  the  Army  or  Navy,  Confess,  be  Prepared  to 
die." 

''It  is  better  to  be  a  traitor  to  a  country  than  a 
traitor  to  your  class." 

"A  live  soldier  is  a  hobo;  a  dead  soldier  is  a 
hero." 

"Why  be  a  Soldier?  Be  a  man,  Join  the  I.  W.  W. 
and  fight  on  the  job  for  yourself  and  your  class." 

"A  policeman  is  a  pimple ;  a  soldier  a  boil  on  the 
body  politic,  both  the  result  of  a  diseased  system." 

"A  soldier  is  the  man  behind  the  gun,  but  the  man 
behind  the  man  behind  the  gun  is  to  blame  for  war." 

Those  are  aphorisms  that  emenated  from  your 
brain? 

A. — I  think  that  those  are  original. 

Q. — And  at  any  rate,  at  that  time,  in  the  fall  of 
1916,  you  held  views  of  that  kind,  did  you? 

A Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  He  said  early  in  1916.  I 
avSsume  you  made  a  mistake. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Well,  it  says  September  12th. 

A. — What  says  September  12th? 

Q. — The  letter. 

A. — Well,  the  letter  hasn't  got  anything  to  do 
with  this.  This  letter  was  not  attached  to  this.  (In- 
dicating.) 

Q. — The  letter  that  refers  to  the  "Why  be  a  sol- 
dier" stickerette  is  September  12th,  isn't  it? 

A. — Yes,  but  that  hasn't  got  anything  to  do  with 
this  absolutely.  This  was  in  my  desk  in  the  files; 
that  little  slip  was  in  a  drawer  to  my  desk. 

Q. — Do  you  say  it  was  earlier  than  the  fall  of 
1916  when  you  wrote  that? 

A. — Sure ;  of  course  it  was,  because  there  is  that 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  235 

"Why  be  a  Soldier"  aphorism,  if  you  call  it  that,  that 
the  other  thing  refers  to. 

Q. — Well,  it  doesn^t  matter.  When  do  you  say 
you  held  the  views  then — when  did  you  write  that? 

A. — It  is  hard  to  tell.  Some  of  those  I  have  used 
six  or  eight  years  ago. 

Q.— I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  more 
letters  here.  One  in  the  first  place  in  answer  to  a 
letter  from  Arthur  LeSeuer ;  that  is  the  same  Arthur 
LeSeuer  who  has  been  mentioned  here  in  connection 
with  the  Non-partisan  league? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — In  this  letter  from  him  to  you  there  is  this 
statement:  ''I  hope  you  don't  start  anything  until 
the  year  has  expired.  This  damned  war  business  is 
going  to  make  it  mighty  hard  to  do  good  organiza- 
tion work  or  good  radical  work  of  any  kind,  but  I 
think  the  fight  should  be  now  centered  against  any 
bills  for  conscription." 

Then  your  ansv/er  written  on  April  11th — 

A. — What  year? 

Q. — 1917.  "Arthur  LeSeuer,  Peoples'  College, 
Fort  Scott,  Kansas:     Fellow  Workers: 

"There  is  nothing  whatever  that  we  can  do  to 
prevent  the  spy  bills  or  conscription  methods.  All 
of  those  things  will  be  passed,  if  the  master  class 
feel  they  need  them.  They  realize  that  of  all  in  the 
great  class  war,  the  place  where  they  are  starting  is 
at  the  point  of  production." 

A. — The  place  where  we  are  what? 

Q. — "Is  at  the  point  of  production." 

A. — Preceding  that. 

Q. — They  realize  first  of  all  in  the  great  class 
war,  the  place  where  we  are  started  is  at  the  point  of 
production.  Our  slogan  is  ^organize  on  the  job.'  Our 
efforts  are  bringing  results  in  spite  of  everything 
else  that  is  going  on  at  the  present  time. 

You  remember  of  writing  that  letter  to  LeSeuer? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  remember  the  letter,  but  I 
know  that  I  wrote  to  LeSeuer;  because  I  would  not 


236  TESTIMONY  OF 

recognize  that  word  for  word. 

Q. — What  efforts — now  he  was  asking  as  to  what 
was  going  to  be  done  about  anti-conscription,  or 
something  of  that  kind.  What  effort  was  it  that  was 
being  put  forth  there  ? 

A. — You  mean — 

Q. — ''Our  efforts  are  bringing  results  in  spite  of 
everything  else  that  is  going  on  at  the  present  time." 

A. — Well,  our  efforts  to  organize — organization 
work,  evidenced  by  the  reports  that  you  read  here 
to  the  jury. 

Q. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  that  was  in  spite  of 
the  work  also  that  was  going  on  to  assist  the  country 
to  prepare  for  war? 

A. — I  don't  understand  how  you  get  this  war  bus- 
iness twisted  in  on  all  these  things. 

Q. — Well,  maybe  I  am  wrong  in  my  construc- 
tion. 

A. — Absolutely  wrong. 

Q.— All  right. 

A. — Not  only  wrong  but  you  were  wrong  from  the 
very  inception  of  this  thing. 

Q. — Wrong  from  the  beginning  of  the  world? 

A. — Wrong  from  the  inception  here. 

Q. — Well  now,  let's  see.  Let  me  call  your  at- 
tention to  a  letter,  June  13,  1917,  to  this  same  Arthur 
LeSeuer,  in  which  you  say:  ''On  June  5th,  between 
40  and  50  members  of  the  I.  W.  W.,  with  Socialists, 
numbering  in  all  135,  refused  to  register  at  Rockford, 
Illinois.  Thes  men  marched  in  a  body  to  the  jail 
and  gave  themselves  up  to  the  sheriff,  saying  they  de- 
clined to  register  and  had  come  up  to  go  to  jail  for  the 
offense.  They  were  locked  up.  Later  I  understand 
a  number  of  them  were  badly  beaten  by  the  deputy 
sheriffs,  and  jail  guards.  I  learned  this  morning 
from  the  Scandanavian  Socialists,  comrades  here  in 
Chicago,  that  the  cases  are  coming  up  on  June  9th. 
The  Socialists  have  asked  us  to  co-operate  with  them 
in  giving  the  men  defense.  The  man  who  telephoned 
me  mentioned  Stedman  of  Chicago  as  a  possible  law- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  237 

yer.  I  told  him  if  we  were  going  in  on  the  case  I 
much  preferred  you  to  represent  the  interests  of 
our  boys,  and  I  would  write  you  to  see  if  you  would 
handle  the  case. 

''Would  it  be  possible  for  you  to  look  after  the 
interests  of  these  members,  and  what  would  be  your 
fee?  As  the  case  now  stands,  it  is,  I  believe,  merely 
a  misdemeanor,  though  they  have  one  man,  George 
Conly  under  arrest  charged  with  conspiracy,  and  of 
course  there  is  no  telling  how  serious  the  other  cases 
may  develop." 

Do  you  remember  making  that  preparation  in 
addition  to  getting  Fred  Moore  on  a  regular  retainer? 

A. — Fred  Moore  had  not  been  retained,  I  don't 
think,,  at  that  time.  This  was  preparatory  to  getting 
a  lawyer. 

Q._june  13th? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Well,  whether  he  was  or  not — 

A. — I  don't  think  Fred  Moore  was  here. 

Q. — Maybe  this  will  help  straighten  that  out. 

A. — Maybe  it  will. 

Q. — This  is  a  letter  dated  June  20th,  1917,  and 
addressed  to  you,  and  has  LeSeuer's  name  on  it,  but 
was  not  written,  typewritten  printed.  Did  you  re- 
ceive that  letter?      (Handing  to  witness.) 

A.— Yes,  I  think  so. 

Q. — In  that  letter  this  same  Arthur  LeSeuer 
stated  to  you:  "I  hope  things  are  moving  well.  I 
look  for  trouble  on  the  Minnesota  Range  when  they 
begin  prosecutions  of  the  slackers,  as  they  call  them." 
And  by  the  way,  at  this  time  he  was  attorney  for  the 
organization,  wasn't  he? 

A. — No.    He  had  not  been  employed  at  that  time. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     Arthur  LeSeuer? 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Yes.     June  20th,  1917. 

A. — He  had  been  attorney  for  the  organization 
on  previous  occasions. 

Q. — "Begin  prosecutions  of  slackers,  as  they  call 
them,  as  there  is  a  bunch  of  real  sappers  there.   Many 


238  TESTIMONY  OF 

of  them  left  their  native  land  to  escape  conscription, 
and  will  not  likely  forego  their  personal  liberties 
here.  Being  interested  in  iron,  as  much  as  it  is  men, 
the  government  will  be  put  up  against  a  hard  game 
to  play  in  a  case  of  a  strike,  and  there  is  no  telling 
what  would  develop.  I  hope  that  the  Department 
of  Justice  will  realize  that  have  now  registered  for 
all  purposes,  it  had  better  quit  and  aid  the  govern- 
ment in  the  prosecution  of  the  w^ar,  rather  than  to 
make  war  at  home  on  these  workers,  but  they  m.ay 
decide  to  go  through. '^  Do  you  remember  receiving 
that  letter? 

A. — I  think  so. 

Q. — And  after  that  time,  Arthur  LeSeuer  acted 
as  attorney  for  the  organization,  did  he  not,  at 
times  ? 

A. — No,  he  has  never  acted  as  attorney  after- 
wards, but  it  is  not  because  he  wrote  that  letter, 
that  he  has  not. 

Q. — Well,  that  is  to  say,  you  would  not  have 
discharged  him — 

A. — If  that  is  what  you  mean. 

Q. — You  would  not  have  discharged  him  on  ac- 
count of  holding  such  sentiments  as  that? 

A. — No,  I  think  that  the  Department  of  Justice 
would  a  good  deal  better  be  helping  the  war  than 
doing  what  they  are  doing. 

Q. — According  to  your  idea,  this  is  not  helping 
the  war  any? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  other 
letters  here,  one  for  instance,  received  May  16,  1917, 
from  Shreveport,  Louisiana,  apparently  written  by 
Clarence  Edwards,  in  which  he  says:  ''Am  sending 
you  a  letter  from  a  fellow-worker  from  the  Sweet 
Home  local,  that  put  up  such  a  fight  against  the  Ball 
Lumber  Company,  as  you  know,  and  wound  up  by 
getting  two  jailed  for  conspiracy  to  murder,  and  the 
funds  were  so  small  for  defense,  that  direct  action 
was  the  only  course  to  pursue.     So  the  third  day  of 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  239 

the  trial,  about  a  hundred  of  them  quietly  marched 
through  the  court  house  with  their  guns  on  their 
shoulders.  No  man  spoke  a  word."  Would  you 
understand  that  that  was  direct  action? 

A. — No.     Let  me  see  that. 

Q.-^I  am  not  quite  through,  then  I  will  hand  it  to 
you.  ''No  man  spoke  a  word.  After  the  procession 
had  filed  through,  and  taken  a  stand  on  the  outside 
of  the  square,  the  district  attorney  proposed  to  the 
court  to  nolle  prosse  the  cases  on  account  of  not 
having  sufficient  evidence  to  convict,  and  now  you 
can  read  his  letter  and  see  just  what  I  am  up  against; 
not  one  of  these  fellow-workers  have  taken  out  a  card 
yet,  and  they  have  promised  me  daily  to  do  so.  My 
last  hope  is  now  that  when  conscription  really  be- 
gins, some  of  the  bunch  will  start  something  and  then 
we  can  get  them  together;  they  are  all  for  excite- 
ment."    Do  you  remember  receiving  that  letter? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes. 

Q. — By  the  way,  you  did  not  answer  that  either, 
did  you? 

A.— No. 

Q. — It  has  your  word  ''file"  on  it. 

A. — It  has. 

Q. — So,  there  is  not  any  doubt  about  your  having 
read  it? 

A. — No,  I  read  it  allright. 

Q. — You  did  not  v/rite  back — this  fellow  Ed- 
wards was  kind  of  a  prominent  man  in  the  organiza- 
tion, wasn't  he?      Clarence  Edwards? 

A. — Yes,  he  was  down  there  as  an  organizer. 

Q. — Pretty  active ;  you  didn't  write  down  there 
and  tell  him  to  stop  that  kind  of  talk  about  organiz- 
ing against  conscription  ? 

A. — Did  he  say  anything  about  organizing 
against  conscription? 

Q. — Well,  he  says  this:  "I  am  up  against  it;  not 
one  of  these  follows — my  last  hope  now  is  that  when 
conscription  really  begins"  that  is  hope  to  line  these 
fellows  up? 


240  TESTIMONY  OF 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Don't  you  construe  that  as  relying  upon  the 
hope — 

A. — Does  he  say  anything  about  working  against 
conscription? 

Q. — I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  this  letter 
from  Williford — no,  this  is  not  to  you,  I  will  not  ask 
you  about  that.  A  letter  dated  Toledo,  Ohio,  May 
29,  1917,  addressed  to  you,  signed  ''Yours  for  Revo- 
lution, by  Leon  Schiff,  or  Sheff,"  in  which  he  says: 
''The  picnic  Sunday,  May  27th" — that  would  be  May 
27th,  1917 — "was  successful  and  we  all  enjoyed  our- 
selves. Fellow  Worker  Plahn  was  down  from  De- 
troit to  talk  at  the  picnic.  We  are  going  to  have  an 
anti-war  meeting  tonight  at  Memorial  Hall,  and  it 
looks  as  if  something  would  be  started  by  the  pa- 
triots." 

And  your  answer  of  June  1,  1917,  to  this  same 
Leon  Schiff,  in  which  you  say  among  other  things: 

"Glad  to  note  that  the  picnic  held  Sunday,  May 
27th  was  successful,  and  hope  that  your  anti-war 
meeting  proves  to  be  a  great  success." 

Do  you  remember  writing  that? 

A. — No ;  I  don't,  and  I  didn't  write  it. 

Q._Who  did? 

A. — Look  at  the  initials  down  in  the  corner. 

Q.— H.  L.  S.? 

A. Yes. 

Q.'— Who  is  that? 

A. — Miss  Seery. 

Q.— Well,  it  is  over  the  title? 

A. — Yes,  I  am  responsible  for  it. 

Q.— General  secretary  treasurer.  It  went  out 
from  headquarters? 

A. — That  is  right,  but  I  didn't  write  it. 

Q. — I  see. 

Q. — Did  you  sign  it. 

A. — No,  it  went  out  with  a  rubber  stamp. 

Q.— What? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  241 

A. — It  went  out  with  a  rubber  stamp.  You  only 
have  the  carbon  there. 

Q. — I  understand. 

A. — Well,  you  ought  to  have  the  original. 

Q. — Well,  let's  look  it  up. 

A. — If  you  have  the  Toledo  files — 

Q. — We  will  see  if  we  can  find  it.  Are  you  right 
sure  now  you  didn't  sign  it? 

A. — No,  I  would  say,  I  presumably  signed  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  He  suggested  you  look  it 
up.    He  probably  isn't  worried. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  think  that  is  all.  Oh,  there 
are  some  papers  here  too — just  a  moment. 

(Documents  marked  government's  exhibit  907  to 
808  inclusive.) 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Mr.  Haywood,  look  at 
government  exhibit  797  and  state  whether  you  are 
the  author  of  the  document?  I  made  a  typewritten 
copy  on  the  back  there,  if  you  want  to,  it  is  easier 
for  you  to  read. 

A. — This  thing  was  taken  from  Seattle. 

Q. — One  from  Seattle  and  one,  I  think  from  Port- 
land, is  it  not?  It  is  over  your  name.  I  say,  aire  you 
the  author  of  it? 

A. — I  don't  recognize  this  at  all. 

Q.— Don't  you? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Have  you  doubts  about  its  authenticity? 

A. — I  never  sent  out  a  circular  of  this  stuff  from 
the  general  office  at  all. 

Q. — Just  a  little  louder. 

A. — I  say  that  circular  or  bulletin  never  has  been 
sent  out  from  the  general  office  on  this  sort  of  ma- 
terial. As  to  the  contents  I  do  not  recognize  them 
at  all. 

Q. — You   notice  that  they  are   over  the   name, 
''William  D.  Haywood,  general  secretary  treasurer"? 
A. — Anybody  can  do  that  on  the  typewriter. 
Q. — Well,  I  say  you  notice  that,  do  you? 
A. — Yes,  I  notice  that. 


242  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — You  still  have  no  recollection  of  having 
written  or  having  circulated  that  document? 

A. — No,  I  certainly  know  that  that  is  not  my 
writing. 

Q. — Your  composition,  you  mean? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — You  never  have  seen  that  before? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — You  are  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Interna- 
tional Socialist  Review,  weren't  you? 

A. — My  name  is  on  the  mast  head. 

Q. — Then  you  are  called  then,  associate  editor? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  were  during  all  of  1917,  weren't  you? 

A. — Yes,  and  am  still. 

Q. — My  attention  is  just  called  to  this  language: 
"The  above  manifesto" — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Wait  a  minute,  just  a 
moment,  this  is  not  in  evidence,  your  Honor. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  I  will  ask  you  to  look  at 
the  last  three  lines  and  ask  whether  or  not  that  will 
refresh  your  recollection  any  as  to  what  the  man- 
ifesto v/as,  and  what  its  purpose  was,  and  whether 
you  had  anything  to  do  with  it? 

A. — This  is  evidently  a  manifesto  that  was  is- 
sued from  Duluth  by  Socialists 

Q. — Over  your  name? 

A. — Not  over  my  name.  Can't  you  see  that  this 
was  a  post  script? 

Q. — You  read  that  last  sentence? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Read  it  aloud.    What  does  it  say? 

A. — All  right. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Wait  a  minute.  It  is  not 
in  evidence. 

THE  COURT:     It  is  not  in  evidence? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  It  is  not  in  evidence  but  that 
would  not  be  a  good  objection  on  cross-examination, 
of  whether  he  wrote  it  or  not. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     I  should  think  so. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  243 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  would  be  permitted,  of 
course,  to  call  his  attention  to  the  language. 

THE  COURT:     You  have  done  that. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  still  don't  you  recognize 
it? 

A. — No,  I  don't,  even  now. 

Q. — As  being  an  emanation  from  your  brain? 

A. — No,  sir;  that  last  line  perhaps,  but  even  that 
I  do  not  think  I  wrote. 

Q. — Well,  now,  I  want  to  hasten  over  these  ;  here 
is  Government  exhibit  number  801  to  Solidarity  from 
Cully  at  Rockford,  do  you  remember  of  seeing  that 
when  it  came  in? 

A. — This  to  Solidarity  and  me  remember  see- 
ing it? 

Q._Yes. 

A.— No. 

Q. — You  did  not.  And  government  exhibit  num- 
ber 800  addressed  to  William  D.  Haywood  upon 
which — 

A. — Mr.  Nebeker,  you  know  how  the  offices  are 
located  over  at  general  headquarters? 

Q. — Yes,  I  did,  Mr.  Haywood,  I  am  not  taking 
issue  with  you  on  it. 

A. — Well,  all  right.     I  didn't  see  it. 

Q. — ^^Seattle,  Washington,  June  17th,  1917,  ad- 
dressed to  William  D.  Haywood,  signed  Defense 
Committee."     Did  you  receive  that? 

A. — 64  West  Washington  Street?  I  don't  know 
anything  about  that.     I  never  saw  it. 

Q. — Here  is  a  letter,  a  wire  from  the  defense  com- 
mittee from  Seattle,  Washington,  June  17,  1917,  and 
addressed  to  Will  D.  Haywood.  Did  you  receive 
that? 

A. — This,  I  suppose  was  received. 

Q. — You  think  that  was  received,  do  you? 

A. — The  top  one,  yes. 

Q. — Now,  do  you  remember,  was  it  Martin  or 
Turner  or  who  testified  here  that  in  Seattle  they  re- 
fused  to   aid  the    defense    of  the   Rockford    cases. 


244  TESTIMONY  OF 

Wasn't  there  one  or  the  other  of  them  so  testified? 
Or  Rowan,  perhaps,  do  you  remember? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  put  in  a  resolution  from 
the  minute  book,  perhaps  that  is  what  you  have  in 
mind  ? 

A. — That  is  the  first  time,  perhaps,  I  ever  was 
addressed  as  ''Will  D.  Haywood." 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Q.— Well,  there  isn't  any  doubt 
about  your  receiving  it? 

A. — I  think  not.    I  believe  it  was  received. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  offer  it  in  evidence,  govern- 
ment's exhibit  number  798. 

A. — What  is  the  street  address  on  that,  Mr.  Van- 
derveer? 

Q. — 64  West  Washington  street. 

A. — I  am  not  sure  that  I  received  that.  Who 
could  have  been  the  author  of  that,  addressing  it  last 
year  to  64  West  Washington  street? 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Hov/  is  that? 

A. — Who  could  have  been  the  author,  that 
signed  Defense  Committee? 

Q. — Well,  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  whether 
you  got  the  wire  from  Seattle  giving  you  this  informa- 
tion about  the  action  of  Seattle  and  the  Rockford 
cases? 

A. — I  don't  remember  it  at  all. 

Q. — I  believe  you  stated  you  have  no  doubt  but 
what  you  did  receive  it? 

A.— I  suppose  I  did  receive  it  when  it  came  there. 
Look  at  it  again,  64  West  Washington. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Any  objection? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  No  objection  only  I  do  ob- 
ject to  counsel's  insidious  manner  of  comparing  one 
thing  to  another.  The  reference  to  the  failure  to  sup- 
port it  was  from  Spokane,  and  this,  evidently  was 
a  Seattle  telegram.  It  has  no  bearing  on  the  matter 
he  is  trying  to  bring  it  in  contact  with. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  (Reading:)  "51  held  open 
charges,  result  raids,  soldiers  and  sailors,  one  soldier. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  245 

No  members  injured;  most  probably  will  be  real- 
ized"— 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     Released. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  ^'Released,  14  may  be  held, 
registration ;  members  standing  firm ;  Seattle  pledges 
all  support  Rockford.  Details  by  mail.  Hall  still 
closed.    Wire  Workers  address." 

A. — The  reason  I  think  perhaps  that  was  not  re- 
ceived is  that  it  is  addressed  to  64  West  Washington, 
evidently  by  someone  who  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
addressing  me  because  he  had  it  ''Will  D.  Haywood" 
instead  of  ''William  D.  Haywood"  and  it  is  signed, 
not  by  name,  but  by  "Defense  Committee." 

Q. — Will  you  say  an  identical  copy  of  that  tele- 
gram was  not  published  in  Solidarity? 

A. — No,  I  would  say  not. 

Q. — And  if  it  was  published  in  Solidarity  then 
you  would  have  no  doubt  of  your  having  received 
the  wire,  I  suppose  would  you? 

A. — No,  there  may  have  been  a  similar  wire  in 
Solidarity  or  that  one  may  have  been,  a  similar  wire 
sent  to  Solidarity,  or  that  one  may  have  been  re- 
ceived or  given  by  me  to  Solidarity,  but  I  don't  re- 
member the  thing. 

Q. — Did  you  personally  write  this  letter,  gove- 
ernment  exhibit  799,  that  is,  that  exhibit  number  is 
placed  on  a  slip  here  that  is  attached,  but  I  mean  the 
next  letter  addressed  to  Jerome  P.  Lippman,  April 
5,  1917.     It  is  a  carbon  of  a  letter? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  you  receive  the  one  attached,  written 
by  the  addressee  of  your  letter? 

A. — I  think  perhaps  that  is  the  letter. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     We  will  offer  it  as  evidence. 

(Government's  exhibit  799  received  in  evidence.) 

Q. — Did  you  send  a  telegram,  government  ex- 
hibit number  803,  to  Laukki? 

A. — It  does  not  seem  to  me  this  was  "English 
and  Austrian."    I  thought  it  was  "English  and  Irish." 


246  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — And  without  mentioning  any  names,  you 
thought  it  was  Doran  and  Brazier? 

A. — Doran  and  Brazier,  if  you  will. 

Q. — You  sent  that  wire  on  June  8th? 

A. — I  sent  that  wire,  I  suppose  that  is  it. 

Q. — You  sent  Pancner  down  to  Kockford? 

A.— Yes,  I  did. 

Q. — Did  you  see  this  wire,  government  exhibit 
number  802,  that  he  sent  back  apparantly  from 
there?  I  do  not  see  that  the  place  is  addressed- — 
no,  this  is  from  Seattle,  but  did  you  see  this  wire? 

A. — This  is  not  a  wire. 

Q.— What  is,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — It  looks  to  me  like  a  letter. 

Q. — Well,  did  you  receive  that  letter? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — Did  you  ever  see  it  before? 

A. — I  never  did. 

Q. — Here  is  a  carbon,  another  form  of  letter, 
government  exhibit  number  805,  written  to  Joe  Gor- 
dan  and  Elmer  H.  Groves,  that  I  questioned  you 
about,  but  I  would  like  to  have  this  one  identified 
and  state  whether  or  not  you  wrote  that  one  per- 
sonally? 

A. — Well,  as  letters  have  been  accepted  here  I 
would  say  that  that  was  mine. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     We  offer  that  in  evidence. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  is  in  evidence  already, 
all  of  these  you  are  offering  now. 

(Government  exhibit  number  805  received  in 
evidence.) 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Then  there  is  no  objection,  I 
suppose. 

Q. — Here  is  a  wire,  telegram  dated  August  5, 
1917,  government  exhibit  number  806,  addressed  to 
A.  D.  Kimball;  did  you  send  that  telegram? 

A. — I  could  not  say  positively. 

Q. — Well,  what  is  your  best  judgment? 

A. — I  don't  know  where  you  got  it,  I  don't  know 
where — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  247 

Q. — From  the  Chicago  files,  seems  to  be  a  copy 
taken  from  the  Chicago  files. 

A. — Why  didn't  you  get  the  copies  from  the  of- 
fice, from  the  Telegraph  office? 

Q. — Then  do  you  deny  sending  that? 

A. — No,  I  don't;  I  just  can't  remember  it. 

Q. — Is  it  your  judgment  it  was  sent? 

A. — I  sent  many  telegrams  to  Columbus. 

Q. — That  is  all  you  can  say  about  this? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did  you  receive   government  exhibit   807? 

A. — This  was  received  at  the  office,  I  think.  I 
am  not  sure  that  I  read  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     We  offer  it  in  evidence. 

(Government  exhibit  number  806  received  in 
evidence.) 

A. — It  is  not  signed. 

Q. — Government  exhibit  number  808,  did  you 
write  that  letter  personally? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Was  it  written  at  headquarters? 

A. — I  should  say  it  was. 

Q. — You  say  it  was?     We  offer  it  in  evidence. 

(Government  exhibit  number  808  is  received  in 
evidence.) 

A. — That  one  was  not  signed,  Mr.  Vanderveer, 
evidently. 

Q. — Will  you  mark  this  one? 

(Exhibit  marked  exhibit  809.) 

Q. — I  will  call  your  attention  to  a  file,  government 
exhibit  809,  that  is  a  letter  from  Arthur  LeSeuer  to 
yourself  that  I  have  already  referred  to,  and  attached 
to  that  a  carbon  of  your  answer  to  that  same  letter 
and  also  another  letter  to  LeSeuer,  over  the  name, 
''General  Secretary-Treasurer."  I  will  ask  you  to 
state  whether  or  not  you  received  the  LeSeuer  letter, 
and  made  the  replies  indicated  from  that  file,  also 
did  you  receive  the  LeSeuer  letter  on  the  back  of  the 
file? 

A. — I  think  so. 


248  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — You  think  so? 

A Yes. 

MR.  NEBEKER:    This  is  offered  in  evidence. 

(Government  exhibit  809  received.) 

Q. — You  wrote  government  exhibit  number  804, 
did  you? 

A. — I  do  not  see  any  date  on  it.  This  as  not  as 
you  got  it.    Has  this  been  copied? 

Q._No.     You  see,   "From  I.  W.  W.   Chicago," 

A. — Well,  why  wouldn't  it  have  the  address? 
This  is  the  first  page,  why  wouldn't  it  have  an  ad- 
dress ? 

Q. — All  I  want  to  know  is  whether  you  wrote  it. 

A. — Well,  I  cannot  say ;  it  is  not  the  form — it  is 
not  the  right  form. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     That  is  all. 

REDIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY 
Mr.  Vanderveer: 

Q. — You  offered  this  in  evidence,  didn't  you? 

MR.  NEBEKER :     Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  will  now  read  this,  gov- 
ernment exhibit  807.      (Reading  to  the  jury.) 

Is  this  some  conspiring  you  did,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — Something  like  it. 

(Reading  continued.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Mr.  Haywood's  reply,  ad- 
dressed to  A.  B.  Kimball.     (Reading.) 

Q. — Weren't  you  and  Mr.  Perry  and  these  people 
working  together  on  all  of  this?  I  thought  this  was 
all  a  conspiracy  between  all  of  you  fellows,  Hay- 
wood? 

A. — Well,  we  were  not  always  in  accord  on  all 
things;  that  is,  there  was  not  always  a  general  un- 
derstanding or  coming  together  of  minds. 

Q. — Was  there  any  infamous  idea  underlying 
the  suggestion  that  these  men  by  starting  to  march 
might  force  the  government  to  restore  them  to  their 
families,  anything  underlying,  any  hidden  purpose 
concealed  there? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  249 

A. — Not  a  thing  in  the  world.  They  say  there 
just  what  they  mean,  by  starting  home,  they  may  be 
able  to  force  the  government  to  assist  them  in  going 
back  to  their  families.  This  was  not  the  only  time 
that  the  government  had  been  requested  to  do  that. 
You  remember  William  Green  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  while  these  men  were  at  Columbus,  miners 
had  been  deported  from  Gallop,  New  Mexico. 

Q. — Members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers? 

A. — Members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  and 
William  Green,  secretary  treasurer  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  sent  almost  identically  the  same  tele- 
gram as  I  did  to  the  president. 

Q. — Threatening  a  strike? 

A. — Threatening  a  strike,  and  the  coal  miners 
were  sent  back  to  Gallop. 

Q. — And  your  men  were  not? 

A. — No,  we  were  not  as  strong  as  the  United  Mine 
Workers. 

Q. — Would  you  call  that  direct  action? 

A.— What  he  did? 

Q. — The  United  Mine  Workers? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — Is  that  bringing  economic  pressure  to  bear? 

A. — That   is   economic   pressure. 

Q. — And  getting  away  with  it? 

A. — That  is  making  it  count,  going  over  the  top. 

Q.— Instead  of  going  to  jail  for  it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — By  the  way,  was  William  Green  prosecuted? 

A. — No ;  he  never  was  prosecuted. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  counsel  asked  you  about 
an  anti-conscription  communication  from  Seattle  to 
the  conference  at  Bisbee,  convention  of  the  miners; 
did  you  ever  hear  of  any  such  thing? 

Q.— I  can  rea'd  it.    That  is  it? 

A. — No ;  I  told  him  that. 

Q. — That  it  was  not  to  the  convention  at  all? 

A. — The  communication  did  not  go  to  the  con- 
ference at  all. 


250  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — It  was  not  to  the  conference  at  all  ? 

A. — It  never  went  to  the  conference  or  conven- 
tion. 

Q. — And  it  was  not  anti-conscription  at  all? 

A. — That  was  received  at  a  branch  meeting. 

Q. — These,  I  suppose  are  the  minutes  of  the 
branch  meeting? 

Q.— Yes. 

A. — ''Communication  read  from  Seattle,  General 
Executive  Committee" — 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Sounds  like  it,  does  it? 

A.— Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  This  is  Bisbee  Local,  June 
23rd:  ''Communication  read  from  Seattle,  General 
Executive  Committee  regarding  the  advisability  of 
a  general  strike  throughout  the  United  States  "as 
protest  against  persecution  of  I.  W.  W.  members  on 
account  of  alleged  anti-conscription  activities.  Order 
as  taken  under  new  business."  "Communications 
from  Butte  strikers  ordered  filed." 

Now,  when  was  the  conference  held  there? 

A. — The  conference  was  on  June  12th,  13th  and 
14th,  if  I  remember  rightly. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Your  Honor  is  it  worth 
while  beginning  the  redirect? 

THE  COURT:  We  will  suspend  here  until  nine 
o'clock  tomorrow  morning. 

(Whereupon  an  adjournment  was  taken  until 
the  following  day,  Tuesday,  August  13,  1918,  at  9:00 
o'clock  A.  M.) 

Tuesday,  August  13,  1918,  9  o'clock  A.  M. 
Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
(Roll  call  of  defendants:    All  answered  "Present.") 

THE  COURT:     Proceed. 
RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION    (Resumed) 
By  Mr.  Vanderveer: 
Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  we  asked  you  to  bring  over 
copies  of  the  literature  that  was  denied  access  to  the 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD     *  251 

mails  and  to  the  express  companies.    You  are  having 
that  done,  are  you? 

A.— Yes. 
Q. — By  the  way,  what  was  the  reason  for  sending 
them  by  express? 

A. — Well,  one  of  the  reasons  was  that  they  would 
not  go  through  by  mail. 

Q. — Had  you  any  recent  experience  with  other 
defense  literature? 

A. — Very  much. 

Q. — Pardon  me. 

A. — Yes,  we  had  had  much  experience.  There 
had  been  lots  of  literature  that  had  not  been  de- 
livered. 

Q. — What  about  receiving  incoming  mail,  with 
remittances  of  money  for  the  defense  ? 

A. — Well,  the  mail  was  delayed.  Now  I  don't 
just  understand  what  this  means,  but  I  heard  a  dep- 
uty explain  to  the  post  master  of  the  sub-station  that 
the  cover  was  to  be  kept  on  all  mail  coming  to  1001 
West  Madison  Street. 

Q. — What  about  remittances  even,  that  this  or- 
ganization has  been  sending  out  to  the  wives  and 
children  and  families  of  the  defendants? 

A. — It  has  been  interfered  with.  Many  of  them 
held  up  for  months.  I  have  the  letters  now  returned 
with  checks  that  have  since  been  duplicated. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  I  make  this  suggestion  at  this 
time,  that  this  appears  to  me  to  be  entirely  im- 
material and  irrelevant,  if  the  Court  please,  and 
opens  up  a  controversy  that  may  take  a  great  deal 
of  time.  I  make  this  statement  to  the  court  and 
counsel.  This  Government  of  the  United  States  is 
rather  a  large  concern,  and  it  has  a  great  many  inde- 
pendent departments  and  in  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  many  things  may  take  place  in  one  department 
that  another  department  knows  nothing  about  and 
has  no  control  over.  If  counsel  is  going  into  matters 
of  this  kind  that  does  not  go  to  the  question  of  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  these  defendants,  would  be  ad- 


252  TESTIMONY  OF 

dressed,  I  would  assume,  if  at  all  proper,  to  a  motion 
for  a  continuance  of  something  of  that  kind.  Now,  if 
they  will  confine  their  investigations  to  anything  that 
has  been  done  by  the  Department  of  Justice,  or  by 
me  or  by  my  associates  in  the  conduct  of  this  case, 
it  will  narrow  the  limits  to  some  reasonable  field, 
and  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  they  shall  do  that, 
because  we  have  at  hand,  and  it  would  not  take  any 
great  length  of  time  to  put  on  the  evidence  that 
would  be  necessary  in  order  to  have  that  matter 
understood.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  have 
most  assiduously  instructed  and  directed  that  noth- 
ing in  the  way  of  interference  with  the  preparations 
for  the  defense  of  this  case  be  done.  The  instructions 
have  been  given  out  and  were  unqualified.  Now  to 
investigate  as  to  what  the  Post  Office  Department 
might  have  done,  to  investigate  the  information  upon 
which  the  Post  Office  Department  in  Washington  or 
somewhere  else  acted,  is  an  interminable  thing,  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case.  If  mail  has  been  stop- 
ped, outgoing,  the  mail  has  been  stoped  under  the 
direction  of  the  Post  Master  General  of  the  United 
States,  I  assume  that  it  has  been  on  the  ground  that 
to  him  seems  necessary. 

THE  COURT:  Now  we  were  through  this  the 
other  day  with  the  witness  on  his  original  examina- 
tion. 

Q. — Were  you  not  examined  about  this  Mr,  Van- 
derveer  last  week? 

A.—Yes. 

THE  COURT:     Is  there  anything  else? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Nothing  now,  except  that 
I  want  to  offer  some  of  the  literature  bye  and  bye, 
and  as  for  the  part  of  the  Department  of  Justice,  I 
think  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  showing  that. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  Haywood,  in  cross  examination, 
counsel  called  your  attention  to  references  in  the 
papers  and  correspondence  about  efforts  that  had 
been  made  in  one  or  two  or  more  of  the  offices,  to 
protect  their  books  and  records  from  seizure,  par- 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  253 

ticularly  at  Spokane.  Do  you  know  any  place,  or 
had  you  ever  heard  of  any  place  where  any  corre- 
spondence was  secreted? 

A. — No,  I  never  heard  of  any  place  where  there 
was  any  correspondence  that  was  hidden. 

Q. — What  was  cached  at  the  Spokane  office? 

A. — Why  the  records,  membership  books, 
stamps. 

Q. — Membership  cards? 

A. — Membership  cards. 

Q. — Books  of  account? 

A. — Books  of  account. 

Q.— And  some  supplies? 

A. — That  was  all,  I  believe,  was  the  supplies  and 
records  and  membership  books  and  statements. 

Q, — Nothing  of  any  confidential  nature  and  noth- 
ing containing  any  secrets  of  any  kind? 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Objected  to  as  leading. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Well,  was  there  any- 
thing then? 

THE  COURT:     Overruled. 

THE  WITNESS:  Well,  of  course  I  was  not  in 
Spokane. 

MR.   VANDERVEER:      I   understand. 

A. — But  I  am  satisfied,  however,  that  they  have 
got  the  complete  records — that  is  the  correspond- 
ence. 

Q. — And  those  records  have  since  been  brought 
to  Chicago? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  are  here  now? 

A.— I  think  so,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — You  know  about  what  they  are,  don't  you? 

A. — Well,  I  know  much  about  what  they  are,  of 
course.  The  correspondence,  letters  and  bulletins, 
communications  of  all  kinds. 

Q. — Was  any  attempt  made  by  you  to  secrete 
any  of  your  letters  or  telegrams  or  correspondence 
or  records  that  might  show  the  activities  of  the  or- 
ganization? 


254  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — Never  removed  a  letter  or  telegram  or  cir- 
cular or  any  scrap  of  paper  from  the  files  of  the  or- 
ganization, as  they  stood. 

Q. — If  Justice  Covington  had  availed  himself  of 
your  invitation  to  examine  your  file,  he  would  have 
found  all  that  the  Government  has  taken  here? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — It  was  all  in  the  office  then? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Anything  to  conceal? 

A. — Nothing  at  all. 

Q. — Has  there  ever  been  any  secret  about  the 
fact,  or  is  it  now  any  secret  about  the  fact  that  you 
disbelieve  in  war? 

A. — No  secret,  every  one  knew  it. 

Q. — Everyone  knows  it  now? 

A. — Yes,  sir,  I  think  so.    I  tried  to  make  it  plain. 

Q. — And  you  still  feel  that  way  about  it? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — Would  you  like  to  see  peace  restored  and  the 
carnage  stopped? 

MR.  NEBEKER :  This  seems  to  be  a  repetition.  I 
object  to  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  It  is  not  a  repetition  if  the 
Court  please.  Counsel  tried  to  create  the  impression 
that  something  had  been  done  away  with. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     This  was  all  gone  over  before. 

THE  COURT:  The  difficulty  is  that  the  wrong 
man  is  testifying.  Go  ahead  with  the  redirect,  but 
let  the  witness  testify. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Q.— You  stated  in  answer 
to  counsel,  that  the  Western  Federation  had  with- 
drawn in  1908.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  are  not  in 
error  about  the  date  of  that? 

A. — Well,  I  wouldn't  be  certain  about  that. 

Q. — Wasn't  it  in  1906,  two  years  before  the  dis- 
cussion? 

A. — No,  it  was  not  in  1906,  the  referendum  vote 
was  taken  later. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  255 

Q. — Well,  when  did  the  move  start  for  the  with- 
drawal of  the  Western  Federation? 

A.— In  1906. 

Q. — Yes.  Just  let  me  ask  you,  had  it  any  refer- 
ence whatever  to  the  discussion  that  culminated  in 
1908  in  an  amendment  to  the  preamble  ? 

A. — Not  a  thing  in  the  world. 

Q. — It  began  two  years  before? 

A. — Yes,  and  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  par- 
ticular clause   about  political  action. 

Q. — Now,  Mr.  DeLeon  has  been  referred  to  by 
counsel  as  one  of  those  who  took  an  active  part  in 
that  discussion.    Is  that  so  ? 

A. — That  is  true. 

Q. — He  did  start  another  organization? 

A. — Just  clipped  a  little  piece  off  the  I.  W.  W. 

Q. — I  understand.  Where  were  the  headquarters 
of  that  organization? 

A. — In  Detroit. 

Q. — In  Detroit,  and  have  remained  there? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — What  happened  to  that  organization  when 
these  raids  were  conducted? 

A. — Oh,  it  was  raided,  the  same  as  the  Socialist 
Party  and  the  I.  W.  W. 

Q. — Even  the  conservative,  lawful  end  of  it  was 
raided  by  the  Government? 

A. — Yes,  indeed. 

Q. — Now  counsel  sought  to  suggest  that  in  the 
course  of  the  controversy  Mr.  DeLeon  took  the  posi- 
tion that  by  eliminating  the  political  plank  he  would 
make  the  organization,  ipso  facto,  a  lawless  organi- 
zation, without  the  bound  of  law. 

A. — That  is  the  position  that  Mr.  Nebeker  took. 

Q. — Was  that  ever  Mr.  DeLeon's  position? 

A. — It  was  not. 

Q.— Is  this  little  book,  ^The  Preamble  of  the 
Industrial  Workers  of  the  World"  an  address  de- 
livered at  Union  Temple,  Minneapolis,  by  DeLeon, 


256  TESTIMONY  OF 

a  statement  of  his  attitude?      (Handing  to  witness 
pamphlet.) 

A. — This  was  a  speech  delivered  by  DeLeon, 
made  following  the  first  convention. 

Q. — To  go  back,  Mr.  Haywood,  last  fall,  or  rather 
last  summer,  I  will  ask  you  if  the  organization  made 
certain  preparations  for  carrying  on  its  activities 
in  event  of  the  arrest  of  its  principal  ofl[icers? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — -What  was  the  nature  of  these  preparations? 

A.— We  had  prepared  in  this  way — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Now,  is  this  subsequent  to  the 
indictment? 

A. — No,  this  is  previous  to  the  indictment.  At 
the  last  meeting  of  the  General  Executive  Board, 
substitutes  had  been  elected  by  each  member  of  the 
General  Executive  Board  and  also  by  myself,  as  gen- 
eral-secretary-treasurer. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Was  that  work  of  a 
confidential  and  secret  nature  ? 

A. — Well,  it  was  expected  temporarily,  at  least, 
to  be  of  a  confidential  nature. 

Q. — Did  the  Government  get  those  records? 

A. — Oh,  yes. 

Q. — They  got  everything,  did  they? 

A. — Everything. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  offer  this  book  in  evi- 
dence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Objected  to  as  immaterial  and 
irrelevant. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  A  statement  by  DeLeon  of 
his  position  on  a  matter  about  which  counsel  ques-i 
tioned  the  witness  in  cross  examination,  for  the  first 
time.  A  question  along  lines  exactly  diametrically! 
opposed  to  the  position  taken  by  Mr.  DeLeon  in  this] 
book. 

THE  COURT:  DeLeon  was  the  leader  of  thel 
seceding  faction? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Counsel  said  in  his  cross 
examination — 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  257 

THE  COURT:     When  did  he  secede? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Oh,  in  1908,  perhaps, 
the  legality  of  our  proposed  scheme  of  procedure 
was  a  discussion  here  in  which  Mr.  DeLeon  attacked 
But  counsel  sought  to  create  the  impression  that  there 
and  we  defended  it.  Knowledge  of  the  fact  that 
we  were  making  outlaws  of  ourselves,  we  want  Mr. 
DeLeon's  statement  to  go  in  as  he  stated  it,  and  not 
as  counsel  stated  it,  if  it  is  material  at  all. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  If  it  was  not  material  then  it 
was  a  collateral  question  and  we  are  bound  by  his 
answer,  and  that  ends  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  am  not  to  be  bound  by 
his  answer.  I  am  not  bound  by  your  insinuation. 
That  is  my  position. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  It  is  not  rebuttable  if  it  is  col- 
lateral. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  just  want  to  read  a  few 
lines  out  of  here. 

THE  COURT:     I  think  this  is  admissible. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  don't  think  so,  your  Honor, 
because  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  it  is  with  ref- 
erence to  the  same  subject  matter  at  all. 

THE  COURT:  Well,  here  is  the  situation.  The 
substance  of  it  is  that  the  I.  W.  W.  is  on  trial.  Now 
that  is  the  substance  of  the  situation  that  the  court 
and  jury  are  dealing  with.  To  enable  the  jury  to 
determine  the  fact  of  the  injustice  of  the  charge,  the 
prosecution  went  back  and  they  gave  the  jury  all 
that  there  was  to  give  to  the  jury  about  what  the 
I.  W.  W.  had  been  and  is.  Now  a  time  came  at  the 
beginning,  at  which  time  or  a  little  while  after  there 
were  among  others,  two  men,  this  witness  and  an- 
other man,  when  they  split.  One  sloughed  off. 
Things  were  said  at  that  time  in  connection  with 
that. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  is  not  one  of  the  things 
said,  as  far  as  the  evidence  shows. 

THE  COURT:  I  understood  the  witness  to  say 
that  it  is. 


258  TESTIMONY  OF 

MR.  NEBEKER:     I  know,  but  that  is  not  what 
the  witness  says,  nor—  , 

THE  COURT :    When  was  this  written?^ 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     This  is  a  statement  by 

^^^THE  COURT:     Q.— That  is  the  man  you  were 
talking:  about?  .    _^ 

THE  WITNESS:    That  is  the  man. 

MR.  NEBEKER:      This  was  made   before  that 

MR  VANDERVEER :  This  is  the  only  thing  he 
said  on  that  matter,  but  it  is  a  statement  by  DeLeon. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  If  the  court  please,  counsel  is 
making  continuous  misstatements. 

THE  COURT:     Q.— Do  you  produce  this? 

THE  WITNESS:     Yes. 

THE  COURT:     What  is  this? 

THE  WITNESS:  This  is  the  preamble  of  the 
I  W.  W.,  a  speech  made  by  DeLeon  in  Milwaukee 
following  the  first  convention  immediately. 

MR  NEBEKER:  Now  you  see  that  is  before  the 
controversy  arose.  That  throws  no  light  on  the  con- 
troversy. ,  .    i    T 

THE  COURT:  Well,  the  only  point  I  am  con- 
cerned with  is  the  length  of  the  gentleman's  obser- 
vations.   How  long  is  it?  .    -   .     j 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  It  is  very,  very  brief.  I 
will  make  it  extremely  brief. 

THE  COURT:     All  right. 

(Document  referred  to  was  received  m  evidence 
and  marked  Defendants'  Exhibit  Number  509.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Reading  from  page  36  of 
this  exhibit. 

(Reads  same  to  jury.) 

MR  VANDERVEER:  Q.— What  do  you  mean 
by  a  ''revolution,"  as  you  and  the  I.  W.  W.  use  the 
term?     A  good  deal  was  said  about  it. 

A.— Well,  there  are — a  revolution  means  a 
change  in  society.  A  revolution  means  the  culmina- 
tion of  evolution.     I  might  use  a  definition:     For 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  259 

instance,  a  chick  in  its  egg  shell  is  in  the  process  of 
evolution.  When  it  picks  at  the  shell  and  comes  out 
a  full  fledged  chick,  that  is  revolution.  That  is  the 
accomplished  thing. 

Q. — From  an  egg  to  a  chicken? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Does  revolution  in  the  sense  in  which  you  use 
it,  imply  or  import  the  use  of  arms  or  violence? 

A. — Not  at  all.    Not  at  all. 

Q. — Well,  how  do  you  describe  revolutionary  in- 
dustrial process,  or  distinguish  it  from  revolutionary 
political  process? 

A. — Now,  revolutionary  political  process,  of  ne- 
cessity, consists  of  violence. 

Q. — Just  explain. 

A. — Suggests  force. 

Q. — Now  that  bald  statement  might  not  explain 
just  what  you  mean.  I  don't  know  whether  it  does, 
to  everyone  or  not.  Just  in  a  word  explain  why  it 
means  violence? 

A. — Well,  there  is  nothing  else  that  it  can  mean 
because  there  is  no  political  force  or  no  political  gov- 
ernment that  has  ever  made  any  change  except 
through  violence.  I  think  that  is  patent  to  every 
one ;  while  industrial  changes  are  peacable  processes. 
That  is,  they  are  brought  about  through  the  inventive 
genius  of  man.  They  are  brought  about  through 
community  and  collective  effort,  and  changes  are 
achieved  in  society  without  any  bloodshed.  You 
often  see  in  our  literature,  reference  to  peaceful 
revolution.  That  is  the  constructive  program  of  the 
organization. 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  references  are  found  in  the 
literature,  letters  and  papers  about  the  strikes  pro- 
posed for  the  purpose  of  releasing  men  held  in  i?^"  , 
particularly  during  last  summer.    Now  did  ^^-'^  ^^^    ^ 
by  that,  men  who  have  been  convicted.' 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q._Have   you   ever,   or  has  ,t  other  telegrams  to 


260  TESTIMONY  OF 

within  your  knowledge,  ever  suggested  that  means  of 
releasing  men  convicted  of  crime  ? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 
.     Q. — When  was  that? 

A. Well,  the  case  of  Joe  Hill,  and  there  has 

also  sprung  up  a  sentiment  now,  developing  in  this 
country,  in  the  case  of  Tom  Mooney. 

Q. — That  is  not  an  I.  W.  W.  case? 

A. That  is  not  an  I.  W.  W.  case,  but  a  man 

whom  the  members  of  the  I.  W.  W.  feel  has  been 
unjustly  convicted.  ' 

Q. With  these  exceptions  do  you  know  of  any 

others  ? 

A. — No,  I  don't  know  of  others. 

Q._Now,  who  were  the  men  who  were  impris- 
oned whose  release  you  sought  last  summer?  I 
don't  mean  by  name,  but  where? 

A. Some    of    them    were    strikers    and  ^  were 

charged  with  being  slackers  and  held  in  jail  without 
warrant,  without  charges  being  preferred — 

Q. What    about   the    Yakima    Valley,    eastern 

Washington? 

A. — All  members  of  the  organization.  No  charges 
preferred  against  them,  no  warrant  issued. 

Q. — Has  the  organization  ever  refused  to  submit 
one  of  its  controversies  fairly  to  the  adjudication  of 
a  court  of  law? 

A. — Never  has. 

Q. — Has  it  ever  failed  to  pursue  the  legal  rem- 
edies to  the  limit? 

A. — No,  I  think  that  on  the  other  hand  they  have 
always  pursed  legal  remedies  as  far  as  we  could  go. 

Q. — In  the  case  of  the  Bisbee  deportation,  what 
was  your  first  step  ? 

A. — I  think  my  first  step  was  to  telegraph  to 
^^e^ident  Wilson, 
term?     ^^§-  you  send  Moore  down  there? 

a". -WelU'^ent  Moore,  and  previous  to  that  sent 

change  in  sociefj^ert  with  Moore. 

tion   of  evolution,  you  send  Moore  down  there  to  do? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  261 

A. — To  see  what  could  be  done.  Now  when  I 
say  that  we  sent  Lambert  and  Miller  with  Moore — 
they  went  to  Washington,  of  course,  on  other  matters. 

Q. — But  I  am  speaking  now  of  Bisbee. 

A. — Well,  Moore  went  to  Bisbee  to  see  what 
could  be  done  in  a  legal  way  for  these  men  who  had 
been  deported. 

Q. — And  v/hat  happened  to  Moore? 

A. — He  was  deported. 

Q. — Moore  was  deported?  Do  you  know  of  any 
efforts  made  to  get  safe  custody  from  the  Governor 
of  the  State? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — What  happened? 

Ac — Well,  Wheeler  practically  told  the  Governor 
that  he  was  running  the  county  in  which  Bisbee 
was  located.  I  don't  remember  just  the  words  now 
that  were  conveyed  in  this  message,  but  that  is  what 
he  meant. 

Q. — Were  you  in  touch  with  the  situation;  being 
advised  I  mean,  about  the  details  of  the  deportation? 
The  condition  of  the  deportees  and  their  families  and 
children? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — What  was  your  information  about  the  condi- 
tion of  the  families  and  children  left  behind  in 
Bisbee? 

A. — The  word  I  received  was  to  the  effect  that 
there  were  hundreds  of  the  wives  of  the  deportees 
and  their  children,  in  a  starving  condition? 

Q. — What  did  you  do? 

A. — Sent  them  money. 

Q. — What  did  the  United  States  do  to  relieve 
them? 

A. — I  regret  to  say  they  did  nothing. 

Q.- — And  under  those  circumstances  you  sent  a 
telegram  to  the  President,  did  you? 

A.— I  did. 

Q. — Are  you  ashamed  of  it? 

A. — I  am  not.     I  have  sent  other  telegrams  to 


262  TESTIMONY  OF 

other  presidents.  I  don't  feel  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  is  above  approach.  I  have  always 
been  taught  that  the  right  of  appeal  is  one  of  the  in- 
stitutions of  this  country. 

Q. — Now  in  this  statement  I  believe  there  is  some 
reference  to  that  situation,  and  counsel  states  that 
you  had  the  audicity  and  effrontery,  like  a  foreign 
potentate  might  do,  to  address  a  telegram  of  demand 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States.  Did  you  do 
that? 

A. — I  did  address  a  telegram  to  the  United  States 
President,  but  I  did  not  understand  this  language  of 
Mr.  Nebeker's  when  he  referred  to  it  as  an  effrontery 
and  audacity. 

Q. — Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States? 

A. — I  am. 

Q. — And  represented,  in  that  instance,  how  many 
other  citizens  of  the  United  States? 

A. — Hundreds  of  thousands.  Not  only  being  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  but  my  forefathers 
have  made  the  United  States,  or  helped  to,  I  mean. 

Q. — Did  it  occur  to  you  that  you  had  a  right, 
under  the  circumstances,  to  wire  the  President  about 
this  situation? 

A. — Why,  certainly.  He  is  the  servant  of  the 
people ;  not  a  king. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  This  does  not  seem  to  be  re- 
direct, I  suggest,  your  Honor. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Mr.  Haywood,  about 
these  two  strikes,  did  you  receive  bulletins  from  time 
to  time  from  the  various  strike  centers? 

A. — All  of  them  at  that  time. 

Q.__What? 

A. — All  of  them  came  regularly  at  that  time. 

Q. — And  saw  the  articles  and  news  items  carried 
in  the  press  of  the  organization? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Well,  was  your  attention  attracted  to  the 
fact  that  relatively  early  in  the  Butte  strike  the  de- 
mands were  being  made  upon  the  Government  to 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  263 

take  over  the  copper  industry  there? 

A. — That  was  set  forth  in  two  of  the  bulletins. 

Q. — And  likewise  in  Arizona? 

A. — Also  in  Arizona. 

Q. — And  also  in  the  lumber  industry? 

A. — Yes,  sir.     You  will  find  a  telegram  there. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  anything  said  in  the  press 
items  about  what  the  Government  would  be  able  to 
in  the  way  of  producing  supplies — what  the  cost 
would  be? 

A. — Well,  it  was  pointed  out  that  in  the  matter 
of  copper,  that  the  Government  would  be  able  to 
produce  copper  at  a  cost  of  13  cents  a  pound.  The 
Government  was  then  paying  33  cents  a  pound,  and 
the  added  profit  was  going  to  the  share  holders  of 
the  copper  mines. 

Q. — Did  those  suggestions  m.eet  with  your  ap- 
proval ? 

A. — They  did  at  that  time,  yes,  sir,  and  do  now. 

Q. — Was  there  in  that  any  indication  of  inter- 
fering with  the  Government's  program? 

A. — Well,  that  certainly  would  not  have  meant 
interferrence  with  the  Government's  program.  It 
would  have  meant  that  every  man  would  have  re- 
turned to  his  work  and  would  have  been  working; 
satisfied  and  content. 

Q. — Do  you  recall  a  telegram  that  you  received 
from  the  Spokane  Press? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  the  reply  which  you  made? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — I  do  not  seem  to  have  the  original  telegram 
here,  but  I  call  your  attention  to  an  article  in  ''Soli- 
darity" under  date  of  July  28th.  At  that  time  the 
lumber  strike  had  been  on  on  the  west  side  for  about 
thirteen  days,  or  rather,  less  than  thirteen  days  at 
the  time  that  came  on  the  street? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  that  article  record  the  correspondence 
correctly? 


264  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — That  was  the  telegram  and  the  answer. 

Q.— (Reading:)  "What  would  be  the  I.  W.  W. 
attitude?  The  editor  wants  to  know  what  the  or- 
ganization would  do  if  all  the  demands  of  the  striking 
miners  and  lumber  workers  were  granted?  Wire  to 
William  D.  Haywood,  Secretary  Industrial  Workers 
of  the  World,  Chicago,  July  20th.  What  attitude 
would  your  organization  and  members  assume  to- 
wards the  mining  and  lumber  industries  of  the  nation 
were  these  basic  industries  commandeered  by  the 
Government  and  shorter  day  established  with  hu- 
mane living  conditions?  Please  wire  answer  at  my 
expense."     That  is  signed,  ''Editor  Spokane  Press." 

Secretary  Haywood's  reply: 

''Chicago,  July  21st.  Editor  Spokane  Press,  Spo- 
kane, Washington.  The  lives  and  happiness  of  mem- 
bers employed  in  mining  and  lumber  industries  are 
embodied  in  their  demands.  Were  these  demands 
granted  by  private  owners  or  by  the  Government 
if  industries  are  commandeered,  it  is  my  opinion  men 
would  return  to  work.  This,  however,  is  not  the 
ultimate  solution  of  the  wage  system.  William  D. 
Haywood,  General  Secretary-Treasurer  of  the  I.  W. 
W."     That  is  on  page  3,  column  1. 

Is  that  a  correct  statement  of  your  position? 

A.— It  is. 

Q. — Was  your  position  ever  any  different? 

A. — Never. 

Q. — Do  you  know  of  the  attempt  being  made 
through  the  Governor  of  the  State,  through  the  War 
Department  of  the  United  States  through  the  State 
Council  for  Defense,  through  Dr.  Carleton  Parker,  to 
adjust  and  settle  the  lumber  strike  so  that  the  pro- 
duction could  go  ahead? 

A. — I  knew  that  all  of  those  things  had  tran- 
spired ;  that  Secretary  of  War,  Baker,  President  Wil- 
son, the  State  Council  of  Defense  and  the  Governor 
and  all  recommended  that  the  eight  hour  day  be 
granted  to  the  lumber  workers.    I  knew  in  turn,  that 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  265 

the  lumber  bosses,  the  so-called  owners,  had  refused 
to  grant  the  eight  hour  day. 

Q. — Was  any  request  ever  made  of  your  organi- 
zation, the  general  organization  or  any  local  branch, 
in  connection  with  the  lumber  strike,  in  connection 
with  the  copper  strike  in  Arizona,  in  connection  with 
the  copper  strike  in  Butte,  by  the  Governor,  by  the 
state  authorities,  by  the  State  Council  for  Defense, 
National  Council  for  Defense,  that  you  refused  to 
accede? 

A. — Not  a  one ;  it  has  been  testified  here  on  this 
stand  that  hundreds,  and  I  venture  to  say  more  than 
a  thousand  members  of  the  I.  W.  W.  fought  to  protect 
the  forests  of  the  Northwest,  fought  fires. 

Q. — It  has  been  suggested  that  you  tried  to  dis- 
rupt the  organization  in  Philadelphia.  Do  you  know 
yourself  what  that  organization  was  doing  last  sum- 
mer? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — Tell  the  jury. 

A. — I  know  that  Local  Number  8,  Marine 
Transport  Workers,  were  engaged  almost  exclusively 
in  loading  munitions,  oil  and  other  supplies  to  go 
across  the  water  for  the  allies.  That  has  been  true 
not  only  all  last  summer,  but  all  the  time  since  war 
has  been  on. 

Q. — By  the  way,  do  you  know  Local  Number  8 
hall? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — How  many  members  in  Local  8  there? 

A. — A  little  over  four  thousand,  at  this  time. 

Q. — Do  you  recognize  this  as  a  picture  of  Local 
Number  8?     (Handing  witness  photograph.) 

A. — That  is  the  front  of  the  hall. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :     I  offer  it  in  evidence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     When  was  it  taken? 

THE  WITNESS:     I  don't  know,  I  am  sure. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Objected  to  as  immaterial  and 
irrelevant.     (Hands  same  to  the  court.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     The  record  from  which 


2&6  TESTIMONY  OF 

that  flag  is  based  was  never  posted  in  the  hall.  I 
will  show  that.  It  was  never  posted  until  quite  a 
while  later,  through  inability  to  get  the  flag. 

THE  COURT:  Do  you  know  when  that  was 
taken? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  That  was  taken  this 
winter. 

THE  COURT :     Objection  sustained. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  will  prove  that  later, 
then. 

(Photograph  referred,  to  was  marked  Defend- 
ants' Exhibit  No.  510  for  identification.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.  —  Do  you  know 
whether  a  single  powder  ship  has  gone  out  of  Phil- 
adelphia since  1917  that  was  loaded  by  anybody 
except  I.  W.  W.'s,  either  over  private  docks  or  the 
Navy  Yard  docks? 

A. — As  I  understand  it,  the  I,  W.  W.  have  job 
control  of  the  Philadelphia  docks.  That  means  that 
every  man  on  the  docks  is  a  member  of  the  organiza- 
tion. 

Q. — By  the  way,  I  will  ask  you — I  don't  know 
whether  counsel  did  or  not,  but  if  there  is  any  ob- 
jection on  his  part  I  don't  care  to  go  into  it.  I  don't 
know  whether  you  were  asked  for  your  explanation 
of  sabotage,  Mr.  Haywood? 

A. — No,  I  was  not  asked  for  my  conception. 
There  was  some — 

Q. — Well,  tell  us  very  briefly,  if  you  will,  what 
it  means  and  what  function,  in  your  opinion,  it  plays 
in  this  class  struggle  ? 

A.— Well,  I  regard  sabotage  as  the  biggest, 
strongest  and  most  wholesome  weapon  of  the  work- 
ing class,  and  a  measure  that  will  not  only  protect 
the  working  class,  but  protect  all  the  people.  Sabot- 
age is  not  what  Mr.  Nebeker  presumes  it  is.  It  is  not 
a  disgraceful,  cowardly  thing  that  should  not  be  used 
and  is  only  used  in  the  dark,  but  sabotage  means 
that  the  workers,  if  organized,  would  refuse  to  adul- 
terate drugs  that  are  given  to  sick  people.     They 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  267 

would  refuse,  because  they  were  organized,  and  be- 
cause they  believe  in  protecting  humanity. 

Q. — What  do  you  mean  when  you  talk  about 
adulterating  things?  Do  you  imply  that  that  is 
being  done? 

A. — Why,  certainly  it  is  done. 

Q. — -By  the  way,  do  you  remember  a  rather  fam- 
ous remark  credited  to  Dr.  Wiley,  of  the  Food  Ad- 
ministration, at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  the 
Pure  Food  Law,  in  a  conversation  with  a  manu- 
facturer of  food-stuffs? 

A. — I  remember  that  he  said  that  if  the  coloring 
matter  that  was  put  in  food  stuffs  were  removed,  or 
if  it  was  prevented  by  law,  that  there  would  not  be  a 
canning  plant  left  in  the  country;  they  could  not  put 
up  their  goods  unless  they  used  this  adulterative 
poison.  That  is  what  Dr.  Wiley  said.  You  take, 
for  instance,  silk  that  is  in  your  neckties,  or  if  you 
are  fortunate  enough,  in  the  dress  that  your  wife 
wears.  That  sabotage ;  not  by  the  workers — yes,  by 
the  workers,  but  not  through  them.  They  are  not 
responsible  for  it,  though  they  do  it.  There  is  four 
times  as  much  mineral  in  the  silk  cloth  that  is  sold 
over  the  counter  now  as  there  is  silk;  either  tin, 
iron,  zinc  or  lead.  All  of  this  silk  manufactured  in 
this  country  is  adulturated.  The  result  is,  if  you  buy 
a  silk  skirt  for  your  wife  and  she  lays  it  away  in  a 
bureau  drawer,  after  a  few  months  she  takes  it  out 
and  it  cracks  and  falls  to  pieces.  Now,  an  organized 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  workers  would  prevent  the 
adulteration  of  silk,  and  would  also  prevent  the  adul- 
teration of  woolen  goods.  About  90  per  cent  of  all 
of  the  goods  turned  out  by  the  American  Woolen 
Company  is  shoddy  fabric;  made  up  from  second 
hand  goods ;  from  short  measures.  It  is  not  woolen. 
The  workers,  by  sabotage,  by  counter  efficiency,  if 
you  like,  could  prevent  that  adulteration.  They 
could  prevent  the  adulteration  in  foodstuffs  so  that 
the  con-sumer  would  be  protected.  They  could  pre- 
vent the  kind  of  stuff  that  you  fellows  eat  in  the 


268  TESTIMONY  OF 

hotels  and  restaurants  being  given  you.  Sabotage  is 
something  that  the  workers  must,  of  necessity,  use 
if  they  propose  to  put  the  capitalist  class  out  of 
business.  I  remember  on  time  in  New  York  City, 
Joseph  J.  Ettor,  one  of  the  defendants  here,  had 
made  a  speech,  and  it  was  quoted  in  the  papers  next 
morning  that  he  had  advocated  putting  something 
in  the  soup.  I  don't  know — a  ''Micky  Finn,"  maybe, 
but  something  of  that  kind.  Well,  there  was  a  good 
deal  of  comment  and  criticism.  The  next  night  I 
spoke  before  the  striking  hotel  and  restaurant  work- 
ers, and  I  gave  them  my  views  on  sabotage  on.  the 
hotel  owner,  on  the  proprietor,  on  the  companies 
that  operate  these  hotels — 

MR.    VANDERVEER:      Q.— The    fellows    they 
were  striking  against? 

A, — The  fellows  they  were  striking  against,  that 
we  are  all  working  against.  I  sugested  that  if  these 
workers  were  all  organized  they  could  serve  to  the 
customers  any  kind  of  food  they  would.  That  they 
could  give  them,  an  extra  cut  of  roast  beef,  a  double 
portion  of  this  and  that,  and  a  big  piece  of  pie.  Well, 
this  took  so  well  that  the  New  York  World  the  next 
morning  said  in  an  editorial — on  the  editorial  col- 
umn, ''Give  us  more  sabotage."  Reciting  the  fact 
that  the  customers  were  not  getting  what  they  were 
entitled  to.  This  is  true  all  over  with  the  capitalists 
and  with  its  business.  During  the  Spanish  American 
War,  for  instance,  the  packing  companies  furnished 
the  soldiers  with  rotten  beef,  that  killed  more  of  them 
than  were  killed  by  bullets.  Not  only  that,  but  they 
are  doing  the  same  thing  now,  and  if  you  will  re- 
member, Andrew  Carnegie  and  his  company  fur- 
nished the  Government  with  steel  plates,  with  blow 
holes  in  them,  to  put  on  the  sides  of  their  ships.  Now 
it  is  up  to  the  workers.  Only  through  them  can  any- 
thing be  done  that  will  prevent  'the  capitalist  class 
of  this  country  or  other  countries,  for  that  matter, 
from  robbing  and  poisoning  and  twisting  everything 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  269 

that  the  human  family  uses.     That  is  my  idea  of 
sabotage. 

Q. — What  do  you  mean  by  the  workers  to  pre- 
vent the  twisting  of  news — go  ahead,  I  asked  you 
what  could  be  done  to  preserve  the  news  from  that 
same  kind  of  domniation. 

A. — I  don't  get  you,  Mr.  Vanderveer. 

Q. — Well,  to  prevent  the  distortion  of  the  news, 
the  news  given  to  the  public  in  the  press? 

A. — Well,  I  think  it  is  pretty  well  understood 
that  the  corporations — the  capitalist  class,  control 
the  newspapers  of  this  country.  The  J.  P.  Morgan 
interests  started  out  to  control  150  papers.  They 
found  that  they  needed  only  25.  Twenty-five  papers 
were  sufficient  to  control  the  sentiment  of  the  country 
in  their  opinion.  And  naturally  in  the  columns  of 
those  papers  are  the  kind  of  information  that  they 
want  distributed.  The  big  papers  of  Chicago,  if 
they  attempt  to  give  a  correct  opinion — a  right  or 
just  opinion  of  anything  that  affected  the  people, 
the  result  would  that  their  advertisers  would  with- 
draw their  advertisements,  and  the  paper,  of  neces- 
sity, would  fail,  because  the  paper  itself  is  de- 
termined by  the  advertisements — that  is,  the  life  of 
the  paper  is  determined  by  the  advertisements  in 
its  columns.  That  is  one  way  they  control  the  press. 
We  say  that  if  the  workers  were  organized  they  could 
not  run  those  kind  of  papers — the  kind  of  papers 
that  are  being  run.  It  is  sort  of  a  parasitic  industry. 
They  are  really  not  needed  anyway. 

Q. — Do  you  know  a  man  named  McDonald,  a 
police  officer  here  who  works  in  the  Department  of 
Justice  ? 

A.— Yes. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  object,  if  the  Court  please, 
as  improperly  assuming  that  McDonald  is  working 
in  the  Department  of  Justice. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— What  is  your  under- 
standing about  it? 

A. — My   understanding   is    McDonald   is   a   city 


270  TESTIMONY  OF 

detective  working  through  the  Department  of  Justice. 

Q. — A  member  of  the  I.  W.  W.? 

A. — He  was  at  one  time. 

Q. — For  how  long? 

A. — I  couldn't  say  as  to  months.  I  would  say 
perhaps  two  years;  eighteen  months  or  maybe  two 
years,  that  I  know  of. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  any  official  position  he 
heldinthel.  W.  W.? 

A. — Well,  he  was  secretary  at  one  time  of  Branch 
2,  Local  No,  85. 

Q. — Secretary  of  Branch  2,  Local  85? 

A. — That  was  before  the  change  in  the  organiza- 
tion. 

Q. — Was  he  at  that  time  a  detective? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  you  know  it? 

A. — Well,  I  found  it  out. 

Q. — Well,  you  had  to  find  it  out? 

A. — Later,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  a  strike  that  occurred  on 
the  North  Side  of  Chicago  here? 

A.— I  do. 

Q.— Do  you  remember  any  proposals  or  sug- 
gestions that  McDonald  made  in  reference  to  getting 
something  to  be  done  in  that  strike? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Now,  this  seems  to  be  im- 
material and  irrelevant.    I  object  to  it. 

THE  COURT:     When  was  it? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Oh,  it  was  some  time  ago, 
your  Honor,  but  we  want  to  show  how  some  of  this 
cussedness  comes  from  the  very  people — detectives, 
who  are  sent  in  to  discover  it,  and  when  it  does  not 
exist,  then,  they  have  to  create  it. 

THE  COURT:     Was  it  prior  to  this  indictment? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  it  was  during  the 
period  covered  by  the  Government  in  its  evidence 
relating  to  the  practices  of  sabotage. 

THE  COURT:  Q._Was  it  prior  to  the  indict- 
ment? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  271 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     Oh,  yes,  yes. 

THE  COURT:     Answer  the  question. 

A. — I  had  heard  that  McDonald  had  made  some 
proposals  of  putting  a  stink  bomb  or  some  other  sort 
of  an  arrangement  of  that  sort  in  the  bosses'  auto- 
mobile.    I  sent  out  for  him — 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Now  let  me— I  don't 
want  to  lead  you,  but  let  me  ask  you  if  there  was  any- 
thing about  a  tank  of  water  on  top  of  a  certain  gar- 
ment or  cap  factory  where  there  was  a  strike  ? 

A. — ^I  don't  know  of  that  instance. 

A. — I  sent  out  for  McDonald  and  had  him  come 
into  the  office  and  told  him  that  I  wanted  him  to  cut 
that  kind  of  thing  out;  that  v/e  did  not  want  any 
mix-up  of  that  kind ;  that  if  these  strikers  could  not 
win,  let  them  go  back  to  work. 

Q. — Now  this  re-direct  examination  will  look  like 
a  mass  of  scrambled  eggs  when  I  get  through  with 
it,  but  I  am  going  back  to  this  strike.  I  want  to  show 
you  a  letter  of  August  19th,  purporting  to  be  sent 
you  by  James  Rowan.  You  remember  getting  that, 
do  you? 

A. — Yes,  I  do. 

Q. — That  w^as  written  on  the  day  Mr.  Rowan  was 
arrested,  I  believe. 

A. — On  August  19th,  yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     I  offer  this  in  evidence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  No  objection.  I  think  it  was 
offered  in  evidence. 

MR. VANDERVEER:  It  has  not  been  offered  in 
evidence ;  I  am  sure  you  did  not  and  I  forgot  it. 

It  is  number  511,  August  19th,  1917,  addressed 
to  William  D.  Haywood. 

(Reads  same  to  jury.) 

This  is  numbered  by  the  Government  66-131-35. 

Q. — I  will  ask  you,  what  was  it  that  held  up  or 
called  off  the  general  strike  on  August  20th?  Was 
it  the  arrest  of  the  men,  or  what  was  it? 

A. — No,  it  was  the  action  of  the  membership. 


272  TESTIMONY  OF 

(Mr.  Vanderveer  continues  reading  from  Exhibit 
last  referred  to.) 

Q. — Didn't  you  know  them  before  this? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — You  had  not  instructed  this,  then? 

A. — I  didn't  know  anything  about  that  until  I 
got  it. 

(Mr.  Vanderveer  continues  reading  document.) 

Q. — Some  prophet,  Jim  is. 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Now,  is  that  a  correct  statement  of  the  sit- 
uation, and  is  that  the  way  you  were  informed  about 
it? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  as  you  knew  about  it? 

A. — As  I  knew  about  it. 

Q. — Had  you  anything  to  do  with  having  that 
call  sent  out? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — Had  you  pushed  the  button  there  by  your 
swivel  chair  and  had  Rowan  do  that? 

A. — You  see  here  where  Rowan  wires  to  Buckley 
and  to  Forrest  Edwards.  All  they  knew  about  it 
was  what  they  received  in  the  telegram,  and  they 
notified  him  by  wire  if  the  members  wanted  it. 

Q. — I  show  you  another  letter  dated  June  21st, 
signed  "James  Rowan,"  addressed  to  you.  Did 
you  receive  that? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Did  you  answer  that  letter? 

A. — I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Q. — There  is  no  file  on  it,  no  directions  to  file  it, 
endorsed  on  it. 

A. — I  think  I  must  have  acknowledged  that  and 
placed  it  on  file  for  reference  to  the  General  Execu- 
tive Board. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:    I  offer  this  in  evidence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:     What  do  you  say  it  is? 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  It  is  a  letter  from  Rowan 
to  Haywood  under  date  of  June  21st,  bearing  the 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  273 

endor-sement  that  it  was  taken  from  the  I.  W.  W. 
Chicago  office. 

(Whereupon  document  referred  to  was  received 
in  evidence,  and  marked  Defendants'  Exhibit  Number 
512.) 

MR,  VANDERVEER:  Also  Mr.  Haywood's  re- 
ply, on  the  letterhead  dated  June  21st,  1917.  (Reads 
same  to  the  jury.) 

Q. — Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  the  start- 
ing of  these  strikes? 

A. — I  did  not. 

Q. — What  was  your  attitude  toward  them? 

A. — Well,  after  they  were  started  we  did  every- 
thing we  could  to  help  them  along. 

Q. — So  that  they  would  win? 

A. — So  that  they  would  win,  yes. 

Q. — Did  you  do  anything  to  drag  them  along  so 
the  Government  could  not  get  lumber? 

A. — As  I  said  yesterday,  we  would  have  settled 
it  in  twenty  minutes  if  we  could  have  done  so. 

Q. — Some  of  them,  I  believe,  were  settled  in  as 
short  a  time  as  six  minutes. 

A. — I  think  we  have  a  record  of  one  that  was 
settled  in  six -or  eight  minutes,  and  the  others  could 
have  been  settled.  Some  of  it  could  have  been  settled 
promptly  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  action  of  the 
Lumber  Association.  They  wanted  to  settle  but 
had  a  bond  up. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  offer  in  evidence  a  num- 
ber of  other  letters  sighed  by  James  Rowan,  relating 
to  the  same  strike  situation,  all  taken  from  the  flies ; 
a  series  of  letters  written  by  James  Rowan  to  various 
persons  on  or  about  June  20th. 

(File  of  letters  referred  to  received  in  evidence 
and  marked  ''Defendants'  Exhibit  513.") 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  The  first  one  is  to  Walter 
Smith,  under  date  of  June  20th.  I  will  read  extracts 
from  each  of  them. 

(Reads  same  to  jury.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     The  next  is  a  letter  ex- 


274  TESTIMONY  OF 

actly  like  it  apparantly  addressed  to  Earl  Osborne, 
containing  the  same  thing. 

(Reads  document  referred  to.) 

The  same  thing  to  Bert  Kelley,  under  the  same 
date,  an  exact  copy,  I  think. 

Another  to  John  Martin,  under  date  of  June  22nd. 

(Reads  letter  referred  to.) 

Another  letter  to  Bert  Kelley,  under  date  of  June 
22nd,  among  other  things. 

(Reads  letter  referred  to  to  the  jury.) 

A  letter  of  July  26th,  a  copy,  to  Earl  Osborne, 
containing  this — this  is  July  26th: 

'The  A.  F.  of  L.  of  this  town  has  passed  a  reso- 
lution in  favor  of  the  general  strike  in  all  industries 
if  the  rough  tactics  against  the  I.  W.  W.  is  not  cut 
out." 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— Now,  Mr.  Haywood, 
there  has  been  so  much  said  about  a  resolution  of 
the  General  Executive  Board  at  a  meeting  of  July, 
that  we  ought  to  clear  it  up.  Do  you  know  what  a 
statement  for  the  m.embership  is? 

A.— I  do. 

Q. — Now  tell  us  what  you  mean  by  the  words: 
'*A  statement  for  the  membership?" 

A. — A  statement  issued  for  the  membership  of 
the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  emanating 
from  the  general  office,  is  always  sent  out  as  a  cir- 
cular letter  or  in  a  monthly  bulletin,  and  then  as  a 
rule,  given  to  the  different  papers  to  be  published 
in  the  columns  of  the  press. 

Q. — Now,  it  apparantly  claims  by  the  government 
that  some  statement  of  the  kind  was  adopted  by  the 
general  executive  board  at  the  meeting  of  July  5th 
or  6th,  or  whatever  it  was.  Was  there  ever  one 
adopted? 

A. — There  never  was. 

Q. — If  it  had  been  adopted  would  it  have  been 
published  so  that  some  copies  of  it  would  have  been 
picked  up  in  the  other  offices? 

A. — Most   assuredly,    copies    would    have    been 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  275 

found  in  the  offices  of  every  industrial  union  and 
every  recruiiting  union. 

Q. — In  the  United  States? 

A. — Certainly. 

Q. — Published  in  the  papers? 

A. — Most  assuredly. 

Q. — Now,  you  had  from  July  7th.  to  September 
28th — two  months  and  a  half,  or  more  in  which  to 
publish  it.    Was  it  ever  published  anywhere? 

A. — Never  was  adopted  and  never  published. 

Q. — Never  published.     Why? 

A. — It  never  was  adopted. 

Q. — Never  was  adopted.    Any  question  about  it? 

A. — No  question,  absolutely. 
'    Q. — Now,  there  was  some  discussion  of  such  a 
measure,  was  there  ? 

A. — There  was. 

Q. — And  who  was  it  started  it?  How  did  it 
happen  to  come  up,  that  is  what  I  want  to  get  at — 
briefly,  give  us  the  details? 

A. — It  seems  to  me  it  was  Frank  Little. 

Q. — Frank  felt  pretty  bitterly,  on  the  subject, 
did  he? 

A. — He  did,  indeed. 

Q. — What  was  the  result  of  the  discussion? 

A. — Well,  now,  I  did  not  attend,  as  I  say,  all  of 
the  meetings  of  the  general  executive  Board,  and  I 
was  not  there  during  the  sessions  of  the  few  meetings 
that  I  did  attend.  But  I  v/as  at  one  meeting  at  least 
where  the  question  of  war  was  under  discussion,  and 
at  this  Meeting  I  had  told  the  members  that  in  my 
opinion  this  was  one  war  in  which  the  I.  W.  W.  was 
going  to  take  part;  that  is  to  say  we  would  be  work- 
ing in  the  harvest;  in  the  forest;  in  the  mines;  and 
explained  to  the  members  of  the  Board  that  this  was 
taking  part  in  the  war.  I  further  went  on  to  say  that 
we  had  been  taking  part  in  the  European  war  since 
its  inception;  that  we  had  prepared  the  iron;  pro- 
duced the  copper,  produced  the  wheat,  produced  the 
lumber  and  we  would  continue  to   do  that.      Our 


276  •  TESTIMONY  OF 

efforts  would  be  directed  to  organizing  industrially, 
and  that  we  would  get  organized  in  such  shape  that 
perhaps  we  could  make  this  the  last  war.  I  pointed 
out  also  what  it  would  mean  if  the  organization  took 
a  stand  against  the  war. 

Q. — What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

A. — Well  it  means  what  was  intimated  here  by 
Mr.  Nebeker;  that  the  forces  of  the  Government 
would  be  used  against  us,  and  I  think  it  was  Little 
that  laid  down  this  copy  of  a  resolution  headed: 
''Statement  of  the  I.  W.  W.  on  war."  I  picked  it  up 
and  crushed  it  in  my  hands,  and  I  think  tore  it,  and 
I  said:  ''That  is  not  the  position  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
The  I.  W.  W.  is  going  to  continue  to  live,  and  this 
would  mean  to  crush  the  life  out  of  it." 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Have  you  that  statement 
readily  available? 

A. — It  seems  to  have  been  ironed  out. 

THE  WITNESS :  To  the  best  of  my  opinion,  that 
is  it.     (Indicating.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Q.— It  appears  to  have 
been  mutiliated? 

Q. — Is  that  how  it  happened  to  get  in  that  shape  ? 

A. — I  think  so.  That  is  my  opinion.  I  just 
crumpled  it  up  and  threw  it  on  the  table. 

Q. — Well,  now  that  appears  to  be  a  carbon 
copy,  Mr.  Haywood.  What  happened  to  the  others, 
I  wonder? 

A. — I  don't  think  this  is  a  carbon  copy. 

Q. — Isn't  it?  I  don't  know.  Maybe  it  isn't.  Let 
us  take  a  look  at  it. 

A^ — At  least  that  is  the  only  copy? 

Q. — I  guess  it  is  not  a  carbon  copy. 

A. — That  is  the  only  copy  I  ever  saw,  and  prob- 
ably the  only  copy  in  existence,  or  that  ever  was  in 
existence. 

Q. — Do  you  know  where  it  was  written?  Look 
at  that  type.  Was  it  written  on  one  of  your  machines 
over  there,  or  where  was  it  done? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  277 

A. — I  think  probably  this  was  written  on  a  num- 
ber 8  Underwood;  8  point  Underv/ood. 

Q. — You  have  those  over  there  ? 

A. — We  had  one. 

Q. — Counsel  questioned  you  rather  closely  about 
certain  increases  in  membership  that  occurred  after 
April  6th,  or  the  4th  of  July,  or  some  other  time. 
What  about  that? 

A. — Well,  we  will  have  to  admit  that  there  was 
a  rapid  increase  in  membership. 

Q. — When  did  it  begin? 

A. — Well,  it  began  shortly  after  the  organization 
of  the  agricultural  workers. 

Q. — When  was  that? 

A.— 1916. 

Q.— 1916? 

A.— 1915. 

Q. — 1915,  you  mean? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  was  there  a  gradual  continuous  increase 
from  that  time  until  1917? 

A. — The  increase  was  gradual  and  very  defined 
every  month  following  that  period.  Let  me  explain 
that.  We  made  more  effective  the  delegate  system. 
Every  member  of  the  agricultural  workers  carried 
credentials  and  cards  with  him.  That  is,  not  every 
member,  but  everey  reliable  member  we  will  say. 
And  as  other  industrial  unions  were  organized, 
each  one  of  the  unions  were  likewise  equipped  with 
credentials,  and  I  would  venture  to  say  that  in  Aug- 
ust, 1917  we  had  in  the  field  more  delegates  than  we 
had  members  in  the  Ji^ginning  of  1915.  That  is,  I 
think  that  we  had  5,000  delegates  organizing  in  the 
field.  These  were  not  paid  delegates  but  they  carried 
literature  with  them  and  in  most  instances  they  re- 
ceived 40  per  cent  of  the  literature  that  they  sold. 

Q. — They  were  all  out  organiznig? 

A. — All  out  organizing,  working  everywhere. 
Every  new  member  meant — not  every  new  member, 


278  TESTIMONY  OF 

but  with  the  growth  of  the  membership,  it  meant 
added  delegates. 

Q. — Isee  your  letter  of  July  30,  1917,  from  Frank 
Little  to  yourself — that  is  the  last  letter  you  ever  re- 
ceived from  him? 

A. — The  last  letter  Frank  ever  wrote  probably. 

Q. — That  was  written  two  days  before  his 
murder? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — In  your  reply  to  it,  your  letter  of  the  27th 
referring  to  the  publication  of  this  article  in  Soli- 
darity, he  says :  ''Note  what  you  say  regarding  the 
report  of  the  Board  on  war,  but  do  not  agree  with 
you.  The  statement  of  Sol.  was  not  from  the  Board, 
and  I  insist  there  should  be  a  statement  from  the 
Board  as  to  their  stand  on  this  and  all  other  wars. 
It  is  my  opinion  it  should  go  out  at  once."  That  is 
what  you  received? 

A. — That  is  the  letter  I  received. 

Q.— And  the  last  you  ever  received? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — That  there  should  be  a  statement  from  the 
Board? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — So  as  yet  you  had  not  gotten  it  out? 

A. — I  received  that  letter,  I  think,  probably  after 
I  received  the  telegram  with  the  news  of  Frank's 
death. 

Q. — Are  there  any  of  these  defendants  who  have 
not  complied  with  the  registration  law? 

A. — None  of  them  that  I  know  of. 

Q. — You  were  in  jail  with  them  all  for  several 
months? 

A. — Yes.  Met  with  them  from  time  to  time, 
most  of  them  every  day,  excepting  the  short  period 
that  I  was  down  at  Wheaton. 

Q. — Something  was  said  in  cross-examination 
about  flags  and  symbols  having  been  seized  by  others 
and  used  for  the  workers  oppression.  I  don't  know 
whether  that  was  in  a  letter  or  in  an  article,  or  what, 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  279 

but  I  recall  counsel  questioned  you  about  that  state- 
ment.    Do  you  recall  that? 

A. — No,  I  don't  recall  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Counsel  himself  is  in  error 
about  it,  if  the  Court  please,  and  I  object  to  it  as  an 
improper  assumption. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     I  am  in  error  about  it? 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     I  remember  yesterday — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  That  was  a  statement  that 
Haywood  himself  made. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  A  statement  that  Hay- 
wood himself  made  ?     All  right.    So  much  the  better. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  What  do  you  mean  by 
that? 

A. — Just  read  that  over. 

Q. — Well,  my  note,  which  is  naturally  very  brief 
is:  ''Flags  and  symbols  have  been  seized  by  others 
and  used  by  the  workers  oppression." 

MR.  NEBEKER :  This  is  a  repitition,  if  the  Court 
please  unless  he  has  got  something  else  to  say  about 
it.  He  made  a  speech  on  that  subject  yesterday, 
and  he  wants  to  repeat  it  now,  that  is  all. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  As  far  as  I  know,  he  never 
said  anything  about  it.  My  recollection  is  that  I  am 
not  in  error,  that  it  was  counsel  who  questioned  this 
witness  about  that  statement  in  Grover  H.  Perry's 
letter — I  think  I  will  get  a  copy. 

Counsel  asked  you:  "Well,  the  whole  point 
about  it  is,  what  you  think  in  the  case — these  inci- 
dents you  speak  of  that  the  American  Flag  has  been 
abused  by  somebody. 

**Q. — The  flags  and  symbols  that  once  meant 
great  things  to  us  have  been  seized  by  our  employers. 
Was  that  the  same  idea  you  had  in  mind  the  other 
day  when  you  in  answer  to  one  of  counsel's  questions 
with  reference  to  this  desecrated  flag  that  was  intro- 
ducecd  in  evidence  here,  you  said  at  that  time  you 
did  think  something  of  the  American  flag."  That 
was  counsel's  question  to  you. 


280  TESTIMONY  OF 

MR.  NEBEKER :  That  is  not  directed  to  the  ques- 
tion before  the  Court. 

:        MR.  VANDERVEER:     That,  is  as  much  of  the 
question  as  I  happen  to  have  embodied  in  my  notes. 

THE  COURT :  Is  there  any  further  examination 
on  that  subject? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:    Yes. 

Q. — I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  an  article  in 
Solidarity  of  March  29,  1913.  Is  this  illustrative 
of  v^hat  you  had  in  mind?  (Handing  witness  a  copy 
of  Solidarity.) 

A.— ''Under  the  flag?'' 

Q. — Yes.  An  incident  occurring  in  the  Lawrence 
strike,  wasn't  it? 

A. — No.  The  Patterson  strike.  Yes,  that  is 
what  I  meant.    That  is  one  of  the  incidents  I  meant. 

Q. — Is  this  the  sort  of  thing  that  you  depreceated 
this  oppression  of? 

A. — You  mean  the  action  of  the  mill  owners  in 
Patterson? 

Q._Yes. 

A. — Most  assuredly.  I  depreceated  that.  They 
tried  there  to  use  the  flag  to  their  own  ends.  That  is 
the  spirit  of  patriotism  that  they  really  wanted  to 
inculcate  in  the  minds  of  the  people  against  the 
Workers. 

Q._Thisis  1913? 

A.— Yes. 

(Mr.  Vanderveer  reads  article  referred  to  to  the 
jury.) 

Q. — Do  you  know  of  any  incident  when  the  I.  W. 
W.  or  you  as  an  oflicer  of  it  have  sought  to  use  the 
flag  for  profit? 

A. — Never.  I  don't  know  of  an  instance  of  where 
the  capitalist  class  have  failed  to  steal  the  symbol  or 
any  flag  for  their  own  use  and  their  own  profit.  I 
remember  one  occasion — an  occasion  where  I  was 
arrested.  We  brought  into  the  court  samples  and 
exhibits  of  tomato  with  a  flag  on ;  pictures  of  detec- 
tive agency  cards  with  a  flag  on,    Politicians  emblems 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  281 

with  their  notices  of  meetings  written  on  the  flag^. 
They  used  the  flag  for  their  profit  at  all  times.  Every 
emblem  that  has  been  conceived  in  the  minds  of  the 
workers,  they  stole  at  the  first  opportunity. 

Q. — Speaking  of  direct  action,  Mr.  Haywood,  do 
you  recall  hearing  a — do  you  recall  hearing  read  in 
this  court  a  letter  from  a  man — a  government  wit- 
ness, named  Frank  Wermke? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Wherein  he  said  he  had  been  thrown  into  the 
guard  house  in  solitary  confinement  for  thirty  days 
before  he  was  produced  here  on  the  witness  stand. 
Did  any  I.  W.  W.  ever  resort  to  that  kind  of  direct 
action? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Or  to  that  method  of  interf erring  with  court 
procedure? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Or  resorting  to  intimidation  or  abuse  of 
witnesses  after  they  had  been  on  the  witness  stand? 

A. — No,  sir. 

Q. — Has  the  I.  W.  W.  in  any  way  ever  proven  dis- 
respectful of  court  proceedings? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  on  occasion. 

Q. — On  occasion.    That  is  all. 

THE  COURT:     Ten  minutes  recess. 

(Whereupon  a  short  recess  was  taken.) 

THE  COURT:     Proceed,  gentlemen. 

RECROSS-EXAMINATION 
By  Mr.  Nebeker. 

Q. — With  reference  to  this  Rowan  letter  that 
counsel  read,  da  you  think  that  Rowan  claimed  at 
any  time  that  the  agricultural  workers'  strike  of 
August  20th  was  called  by  him  without  authority?. 

A. — No,  I  don't  believe  that. 

Q. — You  don't  claim  that? 

A.— No. 

Q. — No,  it  was  the  C.  W.  strike  wasn't  it,  that  was 
called  without  authority? 

A.— Yes. 


282  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — He  tells  in  this  letter  about  having  a  confer- 
ence with  the  other  members  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Northwest,  the  agricultural  workers,  doesn't  he, 
and  that  they  agreed  that  the  sentiment  among  the 
membership  would  justify  the  calling  of  that  strike? 

A. — I  believe  so. 

Q. — But  what  he  was  saying  was  that  the  con- 
tention had  been  made  that  he  did  not  have  the  au- 
thority to  include  the  C.  W.,  the  construction  work- 
ers.   That  is  the  fact,  isn't  it? 

A. — I  think  so,  yes,  sir. 

Q. — It  says  in  this  letter  that  he  then  went  so 
far  as  to  wire  a  man  who  was  at  the  head  of  the  agri- 
cultural workers  of  the  entire  organization,  and  got 
his  consent? 

A. — He  said  if  the  members  are  ready,  let  her  go. 

Q. — If  the  members  are  ready,  let  her  go.  He 
had  already  said  that  the  membership  was  ready? 

A. — That  part  of  it;  the  Spokane  district.  That 
is  all  he  was  acquainted  with. 

Q. — Well,  that  was  all  he  was  asking  for,  wasn't 
it? 

A.— That  is  all. 

Q. — So  that  the  strike  in  the  agricultural  workers 
did— or  the  proposed  strike  that  did  not  take  place, 
but  the  one  that  was  called,  was  as  fully  authorized 
as  the  strike  at  Sandpoint,  or  the  strike^ — practcally 
any  other  one  of  the  strikes,  wasn't  it? 

A. — No,  the  strike  at  Sandpoint  was  not  author- 
ized. 

Q. — Was  not  authorized? 

A. — Was  not  authorized. 

Q. — It  was  not  as  well  authorized  then  as  this 
strike?  That  is  the  agricultural  workers'  strike  in 
the  Northwest? 

A. — The  strike  at  Sandpoint,  as  I  understand  it, 
and  other  places,  had  grown  spontaneously? 

Q. — Yes. 

A. — Had  grown  to  such  proportions  that  he  said 
m  the  letter  there — ''We  cannot  hold  them  back." 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  283 

Q. — This  had  grown  spontaneously  too,  hadn't 
it?     Hadn't  it,  from  his  statement? 

A. — No,  there  was  no  strike  among  the  agricul- 
tural workers. 

Q. — But  they  were  demanding  it,  were  they  not? 

A. — There  was  a  strong  sentiment  for  a  strike. 

Q. — All  were  present  excepting  Fred  Owens,  that 
is,  he  says  J.  B.  White,  Fred  Coffer,  J.  Nichols,  Fred 
Owens,  and  J.  W.  McMinnimen  were  all  present  with 
the  exception  of  Owens,  and  they  thought  he  was 
pinched.  The  committee  did  report  that  there  was  a 
strong  sentiment  for  a  strike  in  the  harvest  fields, 
both  for  the  purpose  of  raising  wages  and  shortening 
hours,  and  also  to  bring  pressure  on  the  authorities. 
Now,  that  was  true  as  you  understand  it,  don't  you? 

A. — Yes,  I  think  that  is  true.  I  think  there  is  a 
strong  sentiment  there  for  a  strike  at  that  time. 

Q. — So  that  he  had  that  strong  sentiment  back 
of  it.  He  had  the  action  of  the  Committee  back  of 
it,  and  he  had  Forrest  Eedward's  consent,  if  the  mem- 
bership wanted  it. 

A. — The  only  thing  he  did  not  have  was  the  con- 
sent of  the  members. 

Q. — That  is,  by  formal  vote  ? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — By  formal  referendum? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  right. 

Q. — Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  resolution  that 
was  passed  at  the  10th  Convention  in  1916,  where 
the  organization  went  on  record  as  being  in  favor  of 
general  strike  in  case  of  war — in  the  event  of  war, 
that  going  out  and  being  understood  among  the 
membership,  being  read  in  the  pamphlet  your  *'The 
General  Strike,"  in  parallel  column;  that  conveyed 
to  the  membership,  did  it  not,  about  all — conveyed 
to  the  membership,  did  it  not,  and  to  all  of  the  mem- 
bers the  idea  that  now  that  war  was  on,  a  general 
strike  was  the  thing  that  the  organization  would  do? 
Isn't  that  so  ? 

A. — The  growing  sentiment  among  the  members 


284  TESTIMONY  OF 

of  the  agricultural  workers  had  not  a  single  thought 
to  do  with  the  war. 

Q.__Well,  now,  how  do  you  know  that,  Mr.  Hay- 
wood? 

A. — That  is  my  opinion. 

Q. — That  is  a  matter  of  impression,  but  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  they  had  read  that  the  organization  be- 
lieved in  a  general  strike  in  case  of  war,  hadn't 
they? 

A. — And  as  a  matter  of  fact — 

Q._Well,  hadn't  they? 

A, — Well,  now,  you  listen. 

Q. — Well,  you  listen  to  me,  first. 

A. — I  am  listening  to  you. 

Q. — Answer  that. 

A.— What  is  that? 

Q. — I  say:  They  had  read  that  the  organization 
was  on  record  as  offering  the  general  strike  in  case 
of  war,  and  being  in  favor  of  it? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  true. 

Q. — So  that  it  only  reasonable  to  believe,  is  it 
not,  that  the  entire  membership  of  the  organization 
that  were  familiar  with  the  proposition,  were  ready 
to  go  into  a  general  strike  just  as  soon  as  war  was 
declared.    Isn't  that  a  fair  proposition? 

A. — No.  Not  fair.  These  men  state  why  they 
are  going  on  strike. 

Q. — Oh,  yes.  That  is  what  they  said.  That  is 
what  your  committee  said. 

A. — Well,  don't  you  believe  them? 

Q. — Well,  if  you  ask  me,  I  say  ''No,  most  posi- 
tively I  do-not." 

A. — -Well,  I  do.  I  believe  that  that  is  what  they 
were  striking  for,  was  a  raise  in  wages. 

Q. — As  a  matter  of  fact,  now,  these  pretenses  as 
to  why  several  strikes  were  called,  the  demands  that 
were  put  out  before  the  public,  differ  very  materially 
from,  for  instance  the  resolution  that  was  passed  at 
the  time  of  the  lumber  workers  were  organized;  dif- 
fer very  materially,  don't  they?     The  resolution  that 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  285 

was  to  the  effect  that  there  would  be  a  general  strike 
called  in  that  district — in  that  industry  in  the  event 
of  conscription — now,  wasn't  there  a  great  difference 
between  what  was  put  out  for  public  consumption, 
and  what  was  understood  among  the  membership 
among  themselves? 

A. — This  is  for  public  consumption. 

Q. — What  is  for  public  consumption? 

A. — Why,  that  they  were  going  on  strike  for  a 
raise  of  wages  and  that  they  were  ging  on  strike  to 
get  their  men  released  from  prison. 

Q. — That  was  for  public  consumption? 

A. — That  was. 

Q. — But  the  other  thing,  they  were  going  on 
strike  in  the  event  of  conscription,  that  was  not  for 
public  consumption,  was  it? 

A.- — Just  as  much  so  as  this. 

Q. — Now,  you  show  me  where  it  was  ever  put 
out? 

A. — On  a  poster. 

Q. — No.  When  it — no  it  was  never  intended  to 
be  put  on  a  poster. 

A. — No,  it  was  never  to  be  put  on  a  poster  or 
to  be  put  into  anything. 

Q. — Why  was  it  formally  adopted  by  the  com- 
mittee and  by  the  committee  and  by  the  convention 
then? 

A. — Was  it  adopted  by  the  convention? 
Q.— Well,  don't  you  know  that? 
A.^ — No,  I  never  heard  of  that  resolution  until  I 
heard  it  here. 

Q. — Well,  if  you  don't  know  that  by  this  time,  I 
v/ill  not  take  any  more  time  on  it. 

A. — Well,  that  is  the  truth.  We  lay  our  heart 
out  on  the  table  for  you  and  you  won't  believe  us. 

Q. — Oh,  Yes.  You  said  something  about — what 
was  it  you  said  about  all  of  the  defendants  here  hav- 
ing registered?     Did  you  say  that  they  had? 


286  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. — I  said  that  they  had,  but  now,  I  know  that 
they  have  not.     There  is  for  instance  one — 

Q._Who? 

A, — Clyde  Hough,  who  was  in  the  Bridewell. 
He  could  not  have  registered. 

Q. — He  has  not  registered? 

A. — I  don't  think  so.    He  was  in  jail. 

Q. — Convicted  of  failing  to  register,  wasn't  he? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — When  did  Manuel  Ray  register? 

A. — I  don't  know  that  Manuel  Ray  has  registered 
either. 

Q. — ^When  did  Herbert  Mahler  register? 

A. — I  couldn't  give  you  the  date. 

Q. — Was  Manuel  Ray  and  Herbert  Mahler  both 
arrested  for  failing  to  register? 

A. — No,  sir;  I  don't  think  Mahler  was  arrested 
for  that. 

Q.— You  don't. 

A. — I  do  not. 

Q. — Didn't  you  write  him  a  letter  about  it? 

A. — I  may  have  written  him,  but  I  know  that  he 
is  registered. 

Q. — What  about  Harrison  George? 

A.— Well,  Harrison  George — 

Q.— Is  he  registered? 

A. — I  think  so. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  what  was  said  about  Ray 
Corder,  what  the  correspondence  shows  about  his 
registration  ? 

A. — I  remember  that  he  had  written  something 
to  his  sister. 

Q.-^Had  he  registered? 

A. — I  believe  so. 

Q.- — You  believe  so? 

A. — I  think  so.  I  am  not  certain  of  what  the  cor- 
respondence showed. 

Q. — When  was  Carl  Ahlteen  registered? 

A. — I  don't  know. 

Q. — Now,   I  gather  from   what  you   have   said 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  287 

here  in  the  last  few  minutes,  that  you  were  very 
much  aroused  about  Little's  attitude  on  the  war  at 
that  Board  meeting? 

A. — I  was. 

Q. — So  much  so  that  you  took  the  statement  that 
he  had  made  and  crumpled  it  up  in  your  hand? 

^4^ Yes. 

q; — Is  that  right? 

A. — That  is  right. 

Q. — Who  were  present  at  that  meeting? 

A. — There  was  all  of  the  members  of  the  Board. 

Q. — Little  was  there? 

A. — Little  and  Lambert — 

Q. — Little  is  dead? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Wiertola  was  there? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — He  is  not  here? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Lambert  was  there? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — He  has  not  been  on  the  stand? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  he  say  anything  about  that  episode? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q. — Brazier  was  there? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q.-^He  has  been  on  the  stand? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Did  he  say  anything  about  that? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Miller  was  there  ? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Has  he  been  on  the  stand? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — He  did  not  say  anything  about  your  being 
aroused? 

A.— Well,  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q. — What  aroused  you,  Mr.  Haywood?  Wasn't 
it  a  fact  that  that  was  a  diatribe  against  war,  or  be- 


288  TESTIMONY  OF 

cause  it  was  forcing  you  to  make  the  attitude  of  the 
inner  circle  of  the  I.  W.  W.  public? 

A. — The  inner  circle — now,  the  I.  W.  W.  has  no 
inner  circle, 

Q. — Well,  then  I  will  amend  my  question  to  say, 
was  it  that  that  aroused  your  passion,  or  your  ire — 
that  is  that  the  Board  was  being  asked  to  make  its 
true  attitude  public,  or  because  it  was  a  diatribe 
against  war? 

A. — Well,  the  Board  was  being  asked  to  make  its 
attitude  public.  Now,  as — now,  I,  as  a  member  of 
the  Board  was  being  asked  to  make  its  attitude  pub- 
lic, and  I  told  the  Board — 

Q. — Now,  I  will  come  to  that. 

A. — All  right. 

Q. — That  is  as  far  as  you  went  in  the  direction 
of  making  your  attitude  public,  wasn't  it? 

A. — No,  indeed. 

Q. — To  talk  there  to  your  Fellow  Members? 

A. — Well,  I  did  not  publish  anything,  if  you  want 
to  know  that. 

Q._No ;  not  a  scratch  of  a  pen  anywhere  in  this 
mass  of  correspondence  can  you  point  to,  can  you, 
where  there  is  anything  suggested  to  that  effect? 

A. — That  I  was  in  favor  of  the  war,  not  a  thing. 

Q. — No.  Don't  interrupt  me.  That  anything 
suggested  along  the  line  of  your  statement  as  to  what 
you  said  to  the  members  of  that  board,  as  to  what 
you  said  before  the  members  of  that  board.  If  there 
is,  will  you  produce  it? 

A. — There  is  not  a  thing — 

Q. — Well,  now  is  there  anything? 

A. — No,  there  is  not. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  What  were  you  going  to 
say? 

A. — ^I  was  going  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  thing 
along  the  line  of  the  other  resolutions  mentioned 
in  this  correspondence  either. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Well,  now,  let  us  see.  I  don't 
want  to  go  over  that  again.     I  will  just  refer  to  a 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  289 

few  things  here  and  let  us  see  what  they  really  say. 
Do  you  remember  writing  this  letter  to  Little  on  April 
21  1917  in  which  you  said — now,  this  was  after  re- 
ceiving a  letter  from  Little.  I  think  he  wrote  you  on 
April  16th.  I  think  he  referred  to  that,  and — I  have 
got  it  here  but  I  don't  want  to  go  into  that  at  this  time. 
You  say :  '1  cannot  help  but  think  that  you  are  mak- 
ing a  serious  mistake  in  advocating  a  public  state- 
ment"  now,  at  that  time  Little  was  pressing  the 

general  executive  board  to  give  out  a  statement  that 
truthfully  stated  the  position  of  the  board  on  war, 
wasn't  he  ? 

A. — He  was  asking — read  his  letter,  and  then  I 
will  know  what  you  are  talking  about. 

Q. —  (Reading:)  "Have  not  heard  from  you" — ^^ 
well,  I  will  start  the  beginning. 

"I  have  written  you  several  letters  since  I  heard 
from  you,  but  as  I  have  been  on  the  road,  I  suppose 
there  are  letters  at  Miami.  Have  not  heard  from  you 
since  the  war  was  declared,  but  in  looking  over  Solid- 
arity am  unable  to  decide  whether  it  stands  for  the 
Worker  enlisting  in  the  army  or  not."  No,  this  is 
April  16th.  "It  is  the  duty  of  the  I.  W.  W.  to  oppose 
war  at  any  and  all  costs.  We  are  opposed  to  war 
and  our  papers  should  let  the  readers  know  where 
we  stand.  The  capitalists  will  try  to  force  our  mem- 
bers into  the  army  and  we  should  let  the  workers 
know  why  they  should  refuse  to  serve  their  enemies." 
"Enemy"  there  was  the  United  States,  wasn't  it? 

A. — No,  the  enemy  there  is  the  capitalist  class. 

Q. — The  capitalist  class  in  the  United  States? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Is  it  a  fair  construction  of  that  letter  that  it 
means  that  by  going  into  the  army  and  serving  the 
United  States  they  would  be  serving  the  capitalist 
Class  i 

A. — I  think  that  is  what  Frank  meant. 
Q.—  (Reading : )     '-'It  is  true  that  they  may  line  a 
tew  of  us  and  shoot  us.  hut  fh^t  n.n«f  h.  .^r...,.^  ;^ 


290  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  fight  for  freedom,  but  just  at  present  it  is  our 
fight.  I,  for  one  will  get  ready  for  any  charge  they 
want  to  put  against  me  to  help  prevent  this  country 
or  the  workers  of  this  country  going  to  the  front. 
I  sent  a  wire  to  Sol.  in  plenty  of  time  for  this  issue, 
giving  my  view,  but  it  was  not  published.  What  in 
Hell  are  we  going  to  do?  Lay  down  like  a  bunch  of 
curs  and  let  them  force  us  to  war?  I,  for  one,  say  no. 
By  G.  B,  I  will  not  keep  still  and  I  want  to  see  our 
newspapers  express  themselves.  If  we  fight  let  us 
fight  for  freedom,  and  now  is  the  time  to  take  a 
stand." 

Now,  this  is  your  answer: 

"I  cannot  help  but  think  you  are  making  a  serious 
mistake  in  advocating  public  statements  that  will 
result  in  nothing  less  than  disbarring  our  papers  from 
the  mails.  Already  Rabochy,  the  Russian  paper,  is 
suppressed.  Do  you  want  the  same  thing  to  happen 
to  the  rest  of  the  I.  W.  W.  papers"? 

Now,  did — now,  do  you  say  anything  in  that  letter 
to  the  effect  that  Little  had  not  expressed  the  real 
true  sentiments  of  the  organization  on  war?  You  did 
not,  did  you? 

A. — Yes.  I  think  you  will  find  it  there.  I  say  to 
him  we  cannot  make  a  public  statement,  we  cannot 
put  any  statement  in  the  columns  of  our  paper,  be- 
cause it  will  result  in  what?  In  them  being  put  out 
of  business. 

Q.— Yes. 

A.— Well— 

^  ,9-— J?, that  criticizing  his  attitude— the  substance 
ot  his  attitude  ? 

A. — Read  the  rest  of  it. 

is  Ji'irJi^l^^''^ ''}  ^Y  ^^7'^^  ^"  ^^'^  ^<^"^  of  crisis 
mJlZ^^^^  ^""^  ^??^  judgment.  Talk  is  not  the 
you^do"  th.f^rV  ^^Y  "^  ^^'  members  feel  as 
nn^hfir.^^^  It  should  be  made  public;  that  you 
ought  to  come  out  m  the  open  in  other  words,  as  Little 


WM.  D.HAYWOOD  291 

^ Yes. 

Q, (Reading:)      '-Many   of  the   members   feel 

as  you  do,  but  regard  the  present  war  between  cap- 
italist nations  as  of  small  importance  when  compared 
v/ith  the  great  class  war  in  which  we  are  all  en- 
gaged." Now,  that  is  all.  "Just  got  a  letter  from 
Don  Sheridan  with  check  for  ?500  on  account.  The 
other  industrial  unions  are  moving  along." — and  so 
forth. 

A. — Now,  I  think  the  paragraph  that  I  asked  you 
to  read  in  which  I  define  the  fact  that  the  class  war 
is  the  war  we  should  fight,  is.  a  challenge  to  anything 
that  Frank  may  have  said. 

Q. — That  is  the  matter  I  examined  you  about 
yesterday.  I  don't  care  to  go  into  it  again,  in  which 
I  asked  you  if  it  was  not  a  fact  that  the  key  to  your 
whole  proposition  during  the  war,  as  given  out  by  you 
in  one  of  your  letters  was  that  every  time  you  drive 
a  nail  for  industrial  unionism,  you  put  one  in  the 
coffin  of  military  preparedness  of  this  country? 

A. — And  my  answer  to  that  was  "yesJ' 

Q. — I  believe  that  is  right. 

A. — I  believe  it  was  too. 

A. — I  believe  that  is  right.  That  is  your  present 
answer? 

A. — That  is  my  present  answer. 

Q. — Now,  what  you  criticize  Little  for  in  that 
case  is  that  he  insisted  upon  a  public  statement, 
wasn't  it? 

A. — Well,  of  course,  issuing  a  public  statement — 
running  it  in  the  paper  is  public. 

Q. — Yes,  but  you  criticized  him  for  that? 

A. — Well,  now,  here:  Are  there  any  private 
statements  ? 

Q. — Are  you  asking  me? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  He  is  asking  you  if  you 
found  any?  "^ 

nriJP  WITNESS:    I  am  saying  that  there  are  no 
private  statements  and  then  I  want  to  say  that  that 


292  TESTIMONY  OF 

word  ''public"  might  be  ambiguous;  might  be  un- 
necessary, but  that  is  what  I  meant  that  a  state- 
ment in  the  columns  of  Solidarity  would  have  meant 
the  suppression  of  Solidarity.  Solidarity  has  been 
suppressed  and  was  a  medium  of  defense,  but  has 
been  put  out  of  business.  You  say  that  you  have  not 
used  any  method — 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q.— Now,  coming  right  back 
to  the  question  I  asked  you  before,  all  that  you  criti- 
cised in  Little's  letter  here  is  that  he  was  insisting 
upon  a  public  statement? 

A.I  criticised  more,  because  I  define  the  class  war, 
and  I  emphasize  there  to  Frank  that  the  class  war 
is  greater  than  any  other  war. 

Q. — We  will  pass  that. 

A. We  are  going  to  fight  that  after  this  war  is 

over? 

Q. — You  don't  say  that  your  real  position  about 
what  Little  wanted  was  because  it  might  result  in 
suppression  of  your  papers? 

A. — That  was  one  of  the  reasons,  and  I  empha 
sized  that  there. 

Q. — You  did  not  give  it  as  one  of  the  reasons  that 
it  might  interfere  with  preparing  for  war,  did  you? 

A. — I  don't  understand  your  question. 

Q. — Did  you  give  as  one  of  your  reasons  for  op- 
posing a  public  statement  that  it  might  interfere 
with  registration,  or  interfere  with  the  country  get- 
ting ready  for  war?  You  did  not  give  those  as  any 
reasons,  did  you? 

A. — I  don't  see  how  I  could  in  reply  to  that;  how- 
ever, I  did  not,  no. 

Q.— No? 

A. — No,  I  did  not. 

Q. — You  never  did,  over  your  signature,  or  in 
writing,  by  a  scratch  of  a  pen  anywhere  in  all  of  the 
records  of  the  organization,  did  you? 

A.— Did  I  what? 

Q. — Do  just  what  you  said  you  did  not  do  in  this 
instance  ? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  293 

A.— No. 

Q. — I  do  not  know  just  how  this  stands,  but  I 
want  to  ask  you  again  on  this  letter  of  July  27th, 
following  the  board  meeting.  You  have  now  an- 
swered, counsel  on  your  redirect  that  there  was  no 
statement  made  by  the  board  and  in  this  letter  you 
say  that  the  article  in  Solidarity  is  the  same  as  the 
statement  by  the  board.  I  want  you  to  explain 
again  why  it  is  you  wrote  that  letter  and  made  that 
statement? 

A. — Well,  I  don't  know  about  explaining  the  let- 
ter, but  I  will  explain  it  by  saying  again  there  never 
was  a  statement  issued  by  the  board — 

Q. — Issued? 

A. — Never  a  statement  made  or  gotten  out,  type- 
written, written  or  anything  else,  or  by  word  of 
mouth,  if  you  will. 

Q. — Well,  did  you  put  up  a  job  on  Little  after 
he  left? 

A. — No.    Never  put  up  a  job  on  him. 

Q. — Did  you  let  Little  get  away  with  the  idea 
that  there  would  be  a  statement  drafted  by  the 
board? 

A. — I  think  probably  he  felt  there  would. 

Q. — And  Miller,  I  think  so  testified,  didn't  he? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Well,  then  was  this  letter  written  to  mislead 
Little? 

A. — No,  I  had  no  intentions  of  misleading  him. 

Q. — Wasn't  it  done  then,  if  there  never  was 
statement  made — well — it  is  calculated  to  mislead 
him,  is  it  not? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Q. — Well,  you  say  that  the  statement  in  Solid- 
arity is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Board.  Doesn't  that 
mean  that  the  Board  had  adopted  a  statement? 

A. — Oh,  he  would  have  had  it.     It  woul^  u-— - 
been  sent  to  him.  xi  •    .   ^ 

Q.— I  know,  but  if  hp  -  -.-/"i^^^  upon  this  mforma- 
tion  alone,  the  —  ^^er  would  be,  wouldn't  it— 


294  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. Now,  listen.    It  would  have  been  sent  to  him 

for  him  to  vote  on,  before  it  was  finally  sent  out 
through  the  bulletins. 

Q. But  hadn't  there  been  a  motion  passed  that 

it  would  be  drawn  up,  after  he  left? 

A. Yes,  but  it  was  not  drawn  up  and  that  is 

what  I  am  trying  to  impress  upon  you  and  the  jury. 

Q. — But  didn't  you  say  in  this  letter  that  it  had 

been? 

A. — Whatever  the  letter  may  have  said.  It  looks 
to  me  as  though  there  is  a  word  there  that  should  not 
have  been  there. 

Q. — Well,  let  us  get  the  original. 

A. — No.  I  mean  in  the  original.  I  have  seen 
it.  It  says:  "The  statement  of  the  Board."  I  am 
trying  to  impress  upon  you  the  fact  that  a  statement 
was  never  issued  by  the  Board. 

Q. — Oh,  that  is  just  as  clear  as  can  be,  that  you 
are  trying  to  impress  me  with  that. 

A. — Well,  I  am  telling  you  the  truth  here. 

Q. — Now,  just  another  question  or  two.  Your 
idea  about  sabotage — you  have  made  quite  a  speech 
on  that  this  morning? 

A.— Yes. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  submit,  if  the  court 
please,  that  such  characterizations  by  counsel  are 
entirely  unnecessary  and  entirely  improper  and  the 
jury  should  be  instructed  to  disregard  it. 

THE  COURT :  Gentlemen  you  will  disregard  the 
reference  to  the  characterization  of  the  prosecutiing 
counsel  to  the  evidence  of  the  witness  on  the  ques- 
tion of  sabotage  as  a  speech.     Proceed: 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q._You  enlarged  at  length 
upon  your  views  of  sabotage  this  morning? 

A.— Yes. 
^^^^^Q' — About  how  it  is  purely — it  is  a  purely  philan- 
publTc?  '  ^'^'^  intended  to  work  for  the  benefit  of  the 

A.-No,  I  don't  say  for  u..  .^.^^  ^f  ^j^^  public. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  295 

but  I  said  that  in  the  matter  of  food  stuffs  and  in 
clothes — 

Q. — Well,  I  don't  care  to  have  you  repeat  that. 
You  said  all  of  that  this  morning. 

A. — Well,  the  public  mainly. 

All  right. 

Q. — Now,  will  you  please  point  out  any  letter,  any 
bulletin,  any  statement  of  any  kind  from  the  I.  W. 
W.,  either- from  one  to  another  of  the  members,  from 
a  member  to  an  official,  from  one  official  to  another, 
in  which  that  kind  of  sabotage  is  mentioned  at  all. 

A. — Well,  there  are  thousands  and  perhaps  hun- 
dred of  thousands  of  people  that  have  heard  me 
speak  on  this  question  of  sabotage. 

Q. — That  is  not  answering  my  question. 

A. — What  is  the  question? 

Q. — There  have  been  almost  thousands  of  ref- 
erences to  sabotage  in  the  correspondence  that  have 
gone  in  here  in  this  case,  have  there  not? 

A. — There  have  been  references  that  to  me,  are 
not  sabotage. 

Q.— Well,  but— 

A. — But  I  have  a  right  to  my  opinion  about 
sabotage. 

Q. — But — what  I  am  asking  you  now  is  whether 
in  all  of  that  you  can  point  to  a  single  instance  of 
the  kind  of  sabotage  that  you  say  you  understand 
sabotage  to  be.     Can  you  do  that? 

A. — Of  course,  you  haven't  introduced  all  of  the 
letters.  I  am  not  sure  but  what  there  would  be  many, 
many  thousands  of  references,  if  you  go  through  all 
of  the  letters. 

Q. — Will  you  make  an  effort  to  get  any? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  No.  I  will  tell  you  now 
that  we  won't  make  an  effort,  as  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned. 

THE  WITNESS:  There  are  witnesses  horc  who 
have  heard  me — defendants  hero  who  have  heard  me 
time  and  again — 


296  TESTIMONY  OF 

MR.  NEBEKER :  That  is  not  responsive — I  move 
to  strike  it. 

THE  COURT :    Strike  it  out. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Will  you  answer  that  ques- 
tion? 

A. — What  is  the  question? 

Q. — Can  you  point  to  a  single  reference  in  all  of 
these  papers — letters,  bulletins,  communications  be- 
tween members  and  officers,  inter-communications 
of  the  organization,  in  which  the  kind  of  sabotage 
that  you  mention,  is  referred  to  at  all? 

A. — I  don't  think  so.  But  then,  I  would  like  to 
ask  you  if  you  can  point  to  a  single  letter  that  I  have 
written  where  you  find  "sab-cat"  or  "cat"  used? 

Q. — Well,  that  was  a  specialty  that  was  left  to 
the  sab-cats  themselves,  wasn't  it,  out  in  the  field? 

A. — Well,  now,  you  can  leave  that  as  you  may, 
but  I  have  my  opinion  about  it,  and  the  fact  that 
there  is  none  of  that  referred  to  indicates  that  my 
opinion  stands  for  something. 

Q. — Would  you  say  that  it  is  a  fair  inference 
from  all  of  the  correspondence  that  has  been  read 
in  evidence  here  that  the  membership  have  a  dif- 
ferent notion  from  what  you  say  you  have  of  sa- 
botage ? 

A. — No,  I  think  there  are  a  large  number  of 
members  who  understand  sabotage  as  I  do. 

Q. — But  have  never  said  anything  to  that  effect 
in  a  letter? 

A. — Probably  not,  and  perhaps  so. 

MR.  NEBEKER :    All  right,  that  is  all. 

RE  RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATIONN 
By  Vanderveer: 

Q. — Can  they  point  to  a  single  statement  of  yours, 
or  to  a  single  statement  by  the  organization  wherein 
oahotasre  has  been  interpreted  to  mean  force  or  vio- 
lence or  destruction? 

A. — They  cannot. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  297 

Q. — Now,  the  organization  has  defined  its  at- 
titude on  these  matters,  has  it? 

A. — Why,  it  is  in  every  book  on  sabotage,  they 
are  defined. 

Q. — I  say  the  organization  has  defined  its  at- 
titude on  the  subject  of  force,  violence,  and  whether 
sabotage  means  that? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Now,  where? 

A. — Well,  you  will  find  it  "On  the  Firing  Line," 
the  report  of  one  of  the  conventions. 

Q. — The  report  of  the  general  executive  board? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  in  the  papers  and  bulletins? 

A. — ^Exactly. 

Q.- — Hundreds  of  them? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Have  you  ever  seen  or  can  they  produce 
from  our  bulletins  or  papers,  or  convention  minutes 
or  proceedings  of  any  kind,  anything  defining  sa- 
botage in  any  other  way? 

A. — They  cannot. 

Q. —  (Continued,)  Than  as  eliminating  force 
and  violence? 

A. — I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  place  where  they 
can  find  any  such  reference. 

Q. — Yes.  Did  you  write  an  introduction  for  Mr. 
Rothfisher  to  Pouget's  Sabotage? 

A. — I  believe  I  did. 

Q. — Well,  now,  can  that  be  found  in  writing? 

A. — It  ought  to  be  found ;  I  had  not  thought  of 
that,  but  it  ought  to  be  found. 

^  Q. — Now,  how  does  that  definition,  as  you  have, 
it  in  your  introduction,  compare  with  your  definition 
given  here  on  the  witness  stand  ? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  object  to  that  as  not  the  best 
evidence. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  You  have  had  hundreds  of 
copies  of  them. 


298  TESTIMONY  OF 

THE  COURT:    Answer  the  question. 

A— I  don't  just  recall  that  particular  introduc- 
tion but  I  thought— I  probably  read  it;  I  know  I  did 
write  something  for  Rothfisher. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     Q.  Now,  Mr.  Haywood— 

A.—  Mr.  Vanderveer —  .       ,      j 

Q. Did  you  hear  Miller  testify  here  on  the  stand 

that  you  objected  to  the  Little  idea  of  issuing  a  state- 
ment? 

A.— I  did. 

Q. — I  guess  you  did  not  go  around  to  Miller  and 
Brazier  and  Lambert  and  all  of  them  and  agree  on 
your  testimony  before  you  went  on  the  stand? 
A. — No,  I  have  not  spoken  to  either  of  them. 
Q. — Did  you  ever  by  scratch  of  the  pen,  to  use 
counsel's  own  language,  do  anything  to  discourage 
enlistment? 

A. — I  never  did. 

Q. — Or  to  incite  insubordination? 
A. — No,  sir. 

Q.— I  don't  know  whether  one  thing  is  clear — 
did  you  think  the  preaching  of  industrial  propaganda 
would  discourage  enlistment? 
A.— No,  I  think  not. 

Q. — You  said  it  would  discourage  war,  or  it  was 
anti-military  propaganda ;  explain  in  what  sense  you 
meant  that? 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Anti-preparadness,  is  what  he 
said. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  anti-preparedness 
is  just  the  same  as  anti-military  to  me. 

A.— Well,  for  instance  that  "Why  Be  A  Soldier" 
.     sticker,  *'Why  Be  A  Soldier,  Be  A  Man,  Join  the 
I.  W.  W."— 

Q. — Well,  I  am  speaking  of  industrial  propa- 
ganda. 

A. — Well,  that  is  one  of  our  species  of  propa- 
ganda and  the  other  things — 

Q- — Was  that  used  after  the  war? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  299 

A. — No,  not  after  the  war. 

Q. — How  long  before  the  war?  I  am  speaking 
of  the  industrial  propaganda  that  you  wrote  in  1917, 
that  you  said  was  anti-military  or  anti-preparedness 
propaganda? 

A. — Yes — well — 

Q. — How  would  it  operate  as  such? 

A. — Well,  here  is  the  proposition,  with  the  or- 
ganization of  the  industrial  workers  of  the  world  in 
considerable  minority  in  this  country,  and  in  other 
countries,  we  would  be  sufficiently  strong  through 
that  organization  to  prevent  war. 

Q._How? 

A. — By  having  control  of  the  industries. 

Q. — Did  you  make — 

A. —  (Continued) — by  refusing  to  make  muni- 
tions, 

Q. — Now,  if  you  had  that  control,  you  would  re- 
fuse  to   make   munitions? 

A. — Absolutely. 

Q. — If  you  did  not  have  the  control  would  you 
doit? 

A. — There  is  nothing  then — 

Q. — Well,  did  you  have  the  control? 

A. — We  did  not. 

Q. — Did  you  try  to  use  it? 

A. — How  can  you  do  it? 

A. — Why,  we  couldn't,  we  didn't  have  the  con- 
trol. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :     That  is  all. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Is  this  an  example  of  sabotage, 
such  as  you  have  explained  it? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  One  other  question,  by 
the  way.  "When  was  Solidarity  suppressed?  At 
least,  when  was  the  second  class  mailing  privilege 
revoked? 

A. — In  August,  I  think — no,  no,  it  was  while  we 
were  in  jail.    I  have  just  forgotten  the  month. 

Q. — How?     I  went  on  the  hearing? 

A. — Yes,  I  don't  remember  what  month  it  was. 


300  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q. — October  or  November?  ^    ^     . 

A.— Either  the  latter  part  of  October,  or  first  of 

November.  _  ,         ^  ,  , 

Q._Not  until  after  the  indictment  was  returned 

in  this  case? 

A.— No.  ^^  ,.^     .^ 

Q. And  what  use  was  being  made  of  Solidarity 

at  that  time?  ^  rx  tj 

A. Why,  we  were  using  the  columns  of  Solid- 
arity for  the  defense  of  this  caase. 

Q. — For  the  defense,  and  it  was  suppressed? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Had  it  ever  been  suppressed  or  any  attempt 
made  to  revoke  the  privilege,  or  suppress  it,  until 
after  that? 

A — .Never,  never  any  question  about  it. 

RBCROSS-EXAMINATION 
By  Mr.  Nebeker: 

Q. — Is  this  your  letter  from  you  dated  July  13, 
1915,  to  Hugh  P.  Gallagher  on  sabotage — 

A.— Yes. 

Q.— It  is? 

A,— Yes. 

Q. — Is  that  the  kind  of  sabotage  you  have  been 
mentioning? 

A. — Do  you  understand  that,  or  do  you  want  me 
to  define — 

Q. — Let  me  read  it? 

A. — All  right,  read  it. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  "I  have  your  letter  of  the  7th 
instant  and  will  try  to  make  good  use  of  the  valuable 
notes  it  contains.  I  should  liked  to  have  a  story  of 
some  use  of  sabotage,  where  you  have  known  it  to 
have  been  applied.  I  know  there  must  be  some  way 
by  which  stinger  and  pick  handlers  can  throw  the 
hooks  into  the  railroad  companies  when  they  are  not 
looking."  Signed  yours  for  Industrial  Freedom, 
—General  Secretary  Treasurer." 

A. — I  think  that  is  one  of  the  ways,  but  do  you 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  301 

know  what  a  pick  handler  is  and  do  you  know  what 
a  stinger  is? 

Q. — No,  I  do  not  know  that  I  do. 

A. — I  would  like  to  explain  to  the  jury. 

Q. — All  right. 

A. — A  pick  handler  is  a  brakeman  who  is  work- 
ing on  a  hump.  Now,  the  railroad  companies  build 
humps  in  their  railroad  yards  so  they  can  handle  their 
cars  with  less  man  power,  and  the  brakemen  are  com- 
pelled to  have  pickhandles  to  put  the  brakes  on, 
and  he  is  a  pick  handler. 

The  stinger  is  a  name  among  railroaders  that 
they  give  to  the  Brotherhood  of  Railroad  Trainmen. 
It  is  not  anything  used  in  sabotage.  The  suggestion 
there  is  that  the  brakeman  and  the  railroad  train- 
men can  offer  some  good  suggestion  for  sabotage, 
and  they  did,  and  the  result  was  that  we  issued  the 
railroad  sticker,  ''Live  up  to  the  book  of  rules." 

Q. — Yes,  but  Mr.  Haywood,  what  did  you  mean 
by  "throwing  the  hooks  into  the  railroad  company 
when  they  are  not  looking?" 

A. — Live  up  to  the  book  of  rules,  that  will  throw 
the  hooks  into  them. 

Q. — When  they  are  not  looking? 

A. — Any  old  time,  all  of  the  time. 

Q.— Well,  but— 

A. — Well,  now,  listen,  the  stockholders  are  not 
looking. 

Q. — Isn't  there  a  suggestion  of  something  secret 
here? 

A. — No,   not  necessarily;   not  necessarily. 

Q. — In  your  "General  Strike"  you  told  how 
sabotage  was  practiced  in  France,  didn't  you? 

A.— I  did. 

Q. — Among  other  things,  how  perishable  freight 
was  taken  out  by  the  trainload  and  sidetracked? 

A. — Yes,  and  fruit,  and  fish,  and  vegetables  and 
meats  were  sidetracked  where  poor  people  lived,  and 
they  got  the  benefit  of  it,  and  that  is  good  sabotage. 


302  TESTIMONY  OF 

Q.— That  is  good  sabotage? 
A. — That  is  fine. 

Q. — I  want  to  ask  you  again  now,  about  a  tele- 
gram, that  I  asked  you  about  yesterday.  I  showed 
you  the  office  copy  of  that  telegram  yesterday  and 
you  said  you  were  not  satisfied  that  you  sent  it.  I 
now  show  you — 

A.— That  I  sent  it? 
Q._Yes. 

A. — That  I  received  it,  wasn't  it? 
Q. — No ;  that  you  sent  it. 
A. — This  one?      (Indicating.) 
Q. — I  now  show  you  the  Western  Union  copy. 
A. — No ;  I  didn't  say  anything  about  not  sending 
this. 

Q. — Well,  did  you  send  that  one? 
A. — I  think  so.     It  was,  not  received  addressed 
to  64  West  Washington,  and  addressed  to  Will  D. 
Haywood. 

Q. — I  think  you  also  said  you  were  not  sure  about 
this. 

A. — No ;  I  think  perhaps  I  did  send  this. 
MR.  NEBEKER :    Let's  have  it  marked  as  govern- 
ment's exhibit. 

(Document  admitted  in  evidence  as  government's 
exhibit  806.) 

A. — But  I  should  like  to  explain  if  I  did  send  this 
it  had  only  to  do  with  the  return  of  deportees  at 
Columbus,  to  Bisbee. 

Q. — I  have  had  marked  as  government's  exhibit 
806,  the  same  number  that  was  on  the  telegram 
I  asked  you  about  yesterday,  do  you  understand? 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  No  objection.  Put  it  in 
any  way  you  want  to. 

A. — Let's  see  these  two  now.  What  is  this 
scratched  out  for? 

MR.    NEBEKER:      Evidently  that   was   on   the 

original  and  it  was  scratched  out  v/hen  it  was  sent. 

A. — ^Where  did  you  get  this  one?      (Indicating.) 

Q. — That  was  taken  from  the  Chicago  files,  the 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  303 

Chicago  office ;  there  is  not  any  doubt  about  having 
sent  those? 

A. — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

MR.  NEBEKER :  (Reading : )  "I  have  sent  tele- 
gram to  President  Wilson,  as  requested.  Strikes  of 
miners,  lumber  jacks,  harvest  workers,  growing; 
marine  transport  workers  report  action.  William 
D.  Haywood,  August  3,  1917." 

That  is  all. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     That  is  all. 

(Witness  excused.) 

MR.  NEBEKER :  I  want  to  recall  Mr.  Haywood 
for  a  word  of  cross-examination  after  I  have  had  an 
opportunity  of  examining  the  DeLeon  pamphlet. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Will  you  avail  yourself  of 
that  privilege  either  today  or  tomorrow? 

MR.  NEBEKER:     Tomorrow,  probably. 

WILLIAM  D.  HAYWOOD, 

one  of  the  defendants,  being  recalled,  and  having 
been  previously  duly  sworn,  further  testified  as  fol- 
lows : 

FURTHER  CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY 

Mr.  Nebeker: 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  I  show  you  a  pamphlet  en- 
titled, "As  to  Politics/'  a  discussion  upon  the  relative 
importance  of  political  action  and  of  class  cons- 
cious economic  action;  the  origin  and  necessity  of 
both,  published  in  Nev/  York,  by  the  New  York  Lit- 
erary New  Company,  28  City  Hall  Palace,  New  York 
City. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:    Is  this  the  same  thing? 

MR.  NEBEKER :  Just  a  moment  now.  Let  me 
finish,  will  you? 

Q. — In  which  a  statement  in  the  introduction 
signed  by  Mr.  De  Leon,  Daniel  De  Leon,  dated  New 
York,  July  8,  1907,  says,  the  contents  of  this  pam- 
phlet is  a  discussion  that  took  place  in  the  palace  of 
"The  People,"  that  is  a  paper  that  I  asked  you  about? 


304  TESTIMONY  OF 

A.— Yes. 

Q, — Under  the  heading  of  ''As  to  Politics"  during 
the  months  of  November  and  December,  1906  and 
January  and  February,  1907,  in  which  pamphlet 
there  was  a  discussion  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
direct  actionists,  that  is  representing  the  direct  ac- 
tionists  was  Sandgren  and  LeBille — did  you  know" 
him? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Did  you  know  Sandgren? 
-  A.— Yes. 

Q. — And  Wagner  and  Vasilio,  do  you  know  who 
they  are? 

A. — What  is  Wagner's  first  name? 

A. — W-a-g-n-e-r. 

A, — I  would  not  say  that  I  know  either  one  of 
those. 

Q. — And  Giovannetti? 

A. — Yes,  I  know  him. 

Q. — And  Hausman? 

A. — Hausman,  I  don't  know  him. 

Q.— Kopald? 

A. — I  don't  know  him. 

Q.— Spettel? 

A. — I  don't  recall  him,  either. 

Q. — Eherlich,  do  you  remember  him? 

A.— No. 

Q._Kiefe? 

A.— No. 

Q. — Rice,  do  you  remember  him? 

A. — I  knov/  a  Rice.  I  don't  know  whether  that 
may  be  the  one  or  not. 

Q. — And  on  the  other  side,  that  is  the  advocate 
of  economic  action  plus  political  action  was  De  Leon. 
Now,  do  you  remember  of  seeing  that  symposium, 
and  that  discussion  in  the  paper  called  "The  People," 
at  the  time  that  it  went  out? 

A. — This  was  in  1906. 

Q.— 1905  and  '06. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :    1906  and  '7. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  305 

MR.  NEBEKER:  1906  and  '7.  I  beg  your  par- 
don. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  This,  of  course,  is  not  the 
purpose  for  which  counsel  asks  permission  to  recall 
the  witness.  He  wanted  to  examine  him  on  the 
book  that  I  put  in  evidence. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  wonder  how  counsel  gets 
these  aberations?  It  was  not  the  purpose  I  called 
him  for  at  all. 

MR.  TANDERVEER :  I  appeal  to  your  Honor  to 
decide  some  of  these  controversies,  made  in  good 
faith,  and  and  protect  me  from  the  charge  which  is 
continually  being  thrown  at  me  here  that  I  am  suf- 
fering from  some  kind  of  insane  delusions.  Now, 
I  am  perfectly  certain  that  when  counsel  asked  leave 
to  recall  this  man  I  said,  "Will  you  do  it  today  or  to- 
morrow" and  he  said,  "When  I  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  this  book.  I  want  to  examine  it  and 
look  at  it." 

MR.  NEBEKER :  There  is  no  use  of  our  debating 
about  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  I  don't  know 
whether  there  is  any  use  debating  about  it  or  not. 
There  is  still  less  use  making  such  remarks  as  coun- 
sel has  been  guilty  of  here ;  takes  special  delight  in. 
I  want  to  press  the  matter,  and  either  make  counsel 
for  special  privileges  and  let  the  decision  of  the 
matter  rest  on  the  record,  or  else  ask  counsel  to 
retract  the  stataement. 

MR.  NEBEKER :    I  will  not  retract  the  statement. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  All  right,  then  I  press  the 
matter  to  a  decision  by  your  Honor. 

THE  COURT:  Well,  now,  Mr.  Vanderveer,  it  is 
awful  hot. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  know  it  is  awful  hot,  but 
I  get  sick  of  those  things. 

THE  COURT:  There  has  been  a  mass  of  ques- 
tions arise  here  that  if  I  would  stop  to  decide  these 


306  TESTIMONY  OF 

things  we  would  not  have  gotten  this  far  along  with 
this  lawsuit. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Q. — Do  you  know  of  that  dis- 
cussion ? 

A. — Why,  I  think  probably  I  do.  I  can't  remem- 
ber of  having  read  those  articles  or  any  particular 
one  of  them. 

Q. — Are  you  not  familiar  with  that  pamphlet? 

A. — No,  I  do  not  think  I  ever  saw  the  pamphlet 
before.  ^ 

Q. — Haven't  you  seen  it  before? 

A. — I  don't  think  so.  The  only  reason  that  I  say 
that  I  think  I  have  read  those  articles  is  that  the 
time  a  part  of  them  appear  I  was  in  jail,  and  got  ''The 
People"  every  day  then. 

Q. — I  will  ask  you  if  in  that  controversy  which 
you  say  you  read  as  it  went  on  in  ''The  People"  the 
paper — the  paper  called  "The  People" — 

A. — Well,  I  say  I  don't  remember  having  read  it, 
as  they  appeared  in  "The  People." 

Q. — Well,  you  read  some  of  these  articles  I  un- 
stood  you  to  say  when  you  w^ere  on  the  stand  before  ? 

A. — I  say  I  don't  remember  of  having  read  those 
articles." 

Q.— Not  any  of  them? 

A. — No,  not  any  of  them. 

Q. — Well,  now,  Mr.  Haywood,  will  you  take  this 
pamphlet  and  look  it  through  at  your  leisure  and 
let  me  know  whether  or  not  that  will  refresh  your 
recollection  so  that  you  can  tell  us  whether  those 
articles  did  appear  in  "The  People"  and  whether 
you  saw  them  and  as  to  v/hether  this  pamphlet  does 
contain  the  two  sides  of  that  controversy— the  dis- 
cussion of  it? 

A. — I  will  look  it  through. 

MR.  NEBEKER :     I  will  ask  you  to  do  that. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  What  is  the  precise  ques- 
tion now,  so  that  there  will  be  no  question  about  if? 
Have  you  put  it  exactly  as  you  want  it? 

MR.  NEBEKER:     That  is  all. 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  307 

REDIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY 
Mr.  Vanderveer: 

Q. — Mr.  Haywood,  since  leaving  the  stand  this 
morning  you  called  my  attention  to  an  editorial  in 
the  issue  of  Solidarity  published  under  date  of  April 
7th,  1917,  entitled  "Sabotage  on  the  Master  Class." 
were  testifying  to  this  morning? 

A. — Yes,  that  is  one  of  the  kind  of  articles  that 
Mr.  Nebeker  wanted  me  to  show  him. 

Q. — Another  article  on  violence  in  the  issue  of— 
an  editorial  in  the  issue  of  June  9,  1917:  ^'Violence 
in  the  I.  W.  W." 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — Has  there  ever  been  any  statement  at  vari- 
ance with  these,  with  this,  on  the  subject  of  violence? 

A. — ^^I  think  not.    I  know  there  has  not. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  want  to  read  one  of 
these  unless  some  one  can  tell  me  that  it  has  been 
read,  before  I  finish  it.  (Reads  article  refered  to  to 
the  jury.) 

Q. — Did  you  have  on  your  desk  or  near  your 
desk  in  the  office  a  placard  about  sabotage? 

A.— I  did. 

Q. — Where  was  it? 

A. — It  was  a  big  poster  tacked  up  along  side  of 
the  desk, 

Q, — Your  desk? 

A. — Yes.  I  have  requested  that  members  of  the 
Government  here  to  get  it. 

Q. — You  have  tried  to  get  it? 

A. — I  have  asked  Murdock  today  and  asked 
Howe  about  it. 

Q. — They  have  tried  to  find  it  and  been  unable  to 
fold  it? 

A. — There  is  also  another  big  poster  or  big  pla- 
card; this  was  in  regard  to  Butte  and  it  was — 
•     Q. — In  regard  to  what? 

A. — In  regard  to  Butte.    The  mines  at  Butte  and 


308  TESTIMONY  OF 

the  demands  that  had  been  won  and  were  enforced 
by  the  Butte  Mine  Workers  Union.  ,    ,,    ,    , 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     Will  you  mark  that  for 

identification?  .      .      .  ,    t^  ,  ^  -^    -xr 

(Document    marked    Defendants'    Exhibit    No. 

514.) 

A. And  I  also  asked  them  to  get  me  a  green 

book  pamphlet,  we  called  it  the  green  book,  entitled 
''The  Category  of  crime  of  the  Mine  Operators'  As- 
sociation," that  was  taken  out  of  the  safe  over  at 
headquarters.  Now,  neither  one  of  those  three 
things  have  I  been  able  to  get. 

Q^ — Did  you  hand  me  this  morning  on  this  piece 
of  the  poster? 

A. — Yes,  a  copy  of  the  poster,  "Sabotage." 

Q. — The  contents;  how  was  this  prepared,  from 
memory  or  how? 

A.— No,  taken  from  ''Solidarity." 
•  Q._Taken  from  "Solidarity,"  this? 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — And  it  is  a  correct  copy  of  the  poster  you 
had  there? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Why  did  you  have  that  sticking  alongside 
your  desk? 

A. — Well,  I  thought  it  was  a  very  splendiid  def- 
inition of  sabotage. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     I  offer  it  in  evidence. 

(Document  referred  to,  marked  Defendants' 
Exhibit  514,  was  thereupon  received  in  evidence  and 
read  to  the  jury.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     That  is  all. 

THE  WITNESS:  I  would  say  also,  Mr.  Vander- 
veer,  that  there  was  an  article  on  my  desk  at  the 
time  we  were  arrested ;  that  was  prepared  by  Grover 
Perry,  and  Perry  just  informed  me  that  he  cribbed 
it,  that  is  to  say — 

MR.  VANDERVEER :    Q._Cribbed  it  from  you  ? 

A. — Yes.  This  was  some  things  I  had  told  him 
about  sabotage  or  that  he  had  heard  me  speak  on 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  309 

about  sabotage  and  he  had  prepared  it,  and  the 
article  was  printed  just  after  we  were  put  in  jail. 

Q._In  Solidarity? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Do  you  remember  that  issue? 

A. — No,  I  don't  remember  what  issue. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  don't  suppose  it  is  here  ; 
the  21st  is  the  last  one.  We  will  get  that  later.  That 
is  all. 

(Witness  excused.) 

MR.  HAYWOOD:  What  do  you  want  me  to  do 
with  that? 

(Handing  book  to  counsel.) 

MR.  NEBEKER:  I  want  you  to  look  at  that  and 
see  if  you  recognize  that  as  being  a  discussion  on  that 
subject,  and  if  it  is  correct  and  sets  forth  the  discus- 
sion and  De  Leon's  position? 

WILLIAM  D.  HAYWOOD, 

one  of  the  defendants,  being  recalled  as  a  witness  on 
his  own  behalf,  and  having  been  previously  duly 
sworn,  further  testified  as  follows : 

REDIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY 
Mr.  Vanderveer: 

Q. — You  were  asked,  I  believe,  Mr.  Haywood,  I 
believe  by  both  of  us,  to  bring  here  copies  of  the  pam- 
phlets which  had  been  held  up  by  the  mail  author- 
ities and  express  companies.  I  want  to  show  you 
seven  pamphlets,  and  ask  you  if  those  are  copies  of 
those  pamphlets. 

(Pamphlets  marked  "Defendants'  Exhibit  515  to 
521  inclusive.") 

A. — Well,  I  do  not  think  that  any  of  those  were* 
sent  out  in  a  single  envelope ;  there  would  be  a  sub- 
scription list — 

Q. — Then,  in  those  envelopes  there  would  be 
other  things  would  there? 


310  TESTIMONY  OF 

A. Those  are  some  of  the  copies  of  different 

pamphlets  we  have  been  sending  out. 

A  JURROR:     Louder. 

A. — Those  are  some  of  the  pamphlets  we  have 
been  sending  out  from  the  general  office  and  which 
have  been  held  up  by  the  mail  authorities. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  I  offer  them  in  evidence. 
That  is  all. 

MR.  NEBEKER:  Just  a  moment.  You  say  they 
are  some  of  them  ? 

A. — Some  of  them. 

Q. — Were  these  sent  out  in  envelopes  and  pack- 
ages along  with  other  circulars? 

A. — I  am  not  certain  that  those  were  done  up  in 
envelopes:  some  of  them  were. 

Q.^-Now,  that  is  what  I  v/ant  to  get  at.  Were 
there  any  of  these  letters  that  contained  a  circular — 
just  one  of  these  pamphlets? 

A. — You  mean,  did  we  put  one  of  these  in  any 
letters? 

A. — Yes,  in  one  envelope. 

Q. — Oh,  I  think  they  went  as  enclosures. 

Q. — Were  the  other  pamphlets  in  those  envel- 
opes? 

A. — No,  they  would  go  with  the  letters;  they 
were  used  as  enclosures.    That 'T.  W.  W." — 

Q. — Now,  when  were  these  letters  held?  First, 
when  were  they  sent  out  from  your  headquarters? 

A. — Well,  some  of  these  have  been  sent  out  since 
February  12th.  For  instance,  I  know  that  because 
some  of  them  have  been  printed  since  I  have  been  out 
of  jail  on  bond. 

Q. — Well,  I  want  to  get  the  date  when  any  of 
these  were  sent  out,  the  exact  date. 

A. — No,  I  cannot  tell  you  the  exact  date  without 
going  over  the  books. 

Q. — In  any  envelope  that  vrent  out  from  head- 
quarters containing  pamphlets,  did  that  envelope 
contain  anything  else  besides  what  is  here,  in  every 
case? 


WM.  D.  HAYWOOD  311 

^  A. — There  would  be  a  subscription  list,  an  appeal 
for  funds  and  perhaps  a  mimeograph  letter. 

Q. — But  there  would  be  other  documents  that 
are  not  contained  here,  are  there? 

A.— Yes,  we  would  not  send  one  of  those  out,  I 
do  not  think,  under  a  three  cent  stamp. 

Q. — And  it  was  so  with  the  express  parcels  you 
hiive  mentioned? 

A. — No,  we  would  not  send  the  letters  out  in  ex- 
press parcels. 

Q. — Is  there  anything  here  that  went  by  express? 

A. — Yes,  all  of  that  went  by  express. 

Q. — This  all  went  by  express? 

A.— Yes. 

Q. — Is  there  anything  that  is  not  here  that  went 
by  express? 

A. — Yes,  there  are  some  other  pamphlets. 

Q. — Other  pamphlets  and  docum.ents;  where  are 
they? 

A. — We  have  got  samples  of  them  over  at  head- 
quarters but  these  are  the  ones  that  are  included  in 
the  packages  that  went  to  Butte  as  I  understand  it. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:     I  offer  them  in  evidence. 

(Defendants'  Ehibit  number  515  to  521  inclusive 
received  in  evidence.) 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  I  am  not  going  to  read  all 
of  these.  This  is  a  sample  of  what  the  government 
has  held  up  ;  I  will  read  this  one :  (Reading  defend- 
ants' exhibit  515.) 

THE  COURT:  I  have  not  intended  to  rule  that 
the  mere  fact  that  the  government  has  held  up  some- 
thing entitles  it  to  be  read  to  this  jury,  Mr.  Vander- 
veer. 

MR.  VANDERVEER :  Without  that,  your  Honor, 
the  jury  cannot  learn  the  government's  attitude  to- 
wards the  I.  W.  W.,  of  which  this  case  is  but  one  ex- 
pression. 

.  THE  COURT:  If  you  have  anything  there  that 
IS  different  from  what  has  been  put  in  here,  or  adds 
anything  to  it,  you  can  read  it,  whether 'the  law 


312  TESTIMONY  OF      ^^ 

grants  it  or  not.  This  you  have  just  read,  they  liave 
already  had  repeatedly  during  the  trial  of  this  case, 
except  the  fact  that  it  was  on  the  pamphlet  that  the 
government  seized. 

MR.  VANDERVEER:  Well,  I  don't  want  to— I 
had  not  intended  to  read  these  at  length.  I  am  not 
familiar  enough  with  them  to  read  with  very  much 
discrimination  either.  I  will  examine  these  before  I 
read  any  more  of  tliem — here  is  one,  number  520. 
'*Do  you  want  mob  rule,"  pamphlet  signed  "I.  W.  W." 
(Reading  portion  of  same.) 

I  won't  read  that  but  I  suggest  you  look  them  Qver 
at  your  own  convenience,  look  them  all  over.  Hand- 
ing to  jury.) 


i 


1 


